However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in the operation of cross-city buses B.

At around 13:20 on April 18, 2013, the Defendant proceeded at a speed of about 60 km from the direction of the Kimpo-si to the direction of the city in the direction of the Kimpo-si.

However, since there is a cross-section where signal lights are installed, there was a duty of care for a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle to drive the motor vehicle safely according to the new code.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and caused the victim to go beyond the floor by shocking the back part of the D Daegpool Oba that the victim C (the age of 50) driven by the left pursuant to the new subparagraph from the opposite direction by negligence that caused the left turn in violation of the signal.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as mination of the left-hand staff members in need of approximately seven weeks of treatment due to such occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement by the police about C (victim);

1. A survey report on actual condition and CCTV for the Traffic Control Center;

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

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents According to the Selection of Punishment, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (Article 62 (1) of the same Act (Article 62 (1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (Article 62 (1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution, including the fact that a vehicle operated by