except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving Obane.

At around 20:55 on May 13, 2019, the Defendant driven the above Oralba, thereby proceeding D 3rd distance in the wife population C from the flood level to the three-range of the Uniform Park at the flood level.

At all times, the signal, etc. is installed, so there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by driving safely in accordance with the new code.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and instead caused the victim E (the 60-year-old driver) to go over the ground by taking the FOba in the case of the victim E (the 60-year-old driver) driving with the two sides of the above intersection due to the direct negligence in violation of the signal.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury, such as the charnel of the pelvis, which was accompanied by a pelvis that requires approximately 12 weeks of treatment to the victim due to such occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. E statements;

1. Report on internal accidents (tele call from the counter party of a stude);

1. A traffic accident report (1), (2), on-site guidance, and on-site photograph of the accident site;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Special Cases concerning the Selection of Punishment for Criminal Facts, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, the selection of imprisonment without prison labor

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence is that in the case of the defendant's occupational error, pedestrians passed the crosswalk as it is in violation of the signal, and immediately before it, the victim's scambaf, who had been an interned pursuant to the new code, is heavy, and the degree of the violation of the duty of care is reasonable.

However, the defendant reflects the mistake, there is no criminal record exceeding the same kind and fine, and through liability insurance, about KRW 30 million for the victim.