However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of a car of Dstststa taxi.

On October 19, 2014, the Defendant driven the above taxi on October 02:26, 2014, and proceeded at approximately 85 kilometers from the front side of Yongsan-gu Seoul E-ro, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, to the front side of the four-lane road of Yongsan-gu, Seoul.

At this point, the speed of restriction is 60 kilometers per hour, and there are many high-speed vehicles due to the core time, so there was a duty of care to prevent accidents due to the failure of the accident by well-bruing the front left, complying with the speed limit, and driving by observing the speed limit.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and neglected the duty of Jeonju as well as neglected to do so, and neglected the duty of Jeonju, and caused the victim to go beyond the ground floor by shocking the right side part of the Victim GHY-125L, which changed from three lanes to four lanes from the same direction, into the part of the Defendant’s vehicle driver’s seat.

In conclusion, the Defendant suffered, by the above occupational negligence, the victim suffered the victim’s frighten in detail of treatment days (on the left side frighting side), the frightening side in which there is no open wound, the frightening side, the frightening side, the frighten side, the frightening side of the two in which there is no open wound, and the two frightenites.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement of H;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. Video recording device CDs;

1. Answers on results of comprehensive traffic accident analysis;

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

1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Special Cases concerning the Selection of Punishment for Criminal Facts, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act.

1. In light of the Defendant’s negligence in sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act and the degree of injury to the victim, etc., the Defendant’s liability is not easy, and the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle is also erroneous in driving and sudden change of the victim in the instant traffic accident.