The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of private taxi B.

On March 12, 2015, the Defendant driven a cab on March 12, 2015, driving the cab on the side of the hotel located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and driving it on the side of the hotel located in Jung-gu, Seoul, and entered the main road.

Since there is a place in which a crosswalk is installed, the driver has a duty of care to reduce the speed, to live well on the front side and the left side, and to check whether there is a person standing on the crosswalk, and to safely drive the crosswalk.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and neglected to do so and neglected to do so, thereby putting the victim E (the 54 years old) on the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

As a result, the Defendant suffered from the above occupational negligence, the victim suffered approximately 12 weeks of medical treatment, the fourth pressure frame, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement of the occurrence of each traffic accident of E;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. Each written diagnosis;

1. Application of traffic accident video CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense

1. The defendant's negligence is large as the victim was involved in the accident without any negligence due to a shock accident behind the victim, who was physically walking along the crosswalk which had the reason for sentencing of selective sentencing of the punishment without prison labor, and the extent and degree of damage is significant.

Although the defendant is a primary offender, he is subscribed to a personal taxi deduction, and deposited 5 million won with the agreed money, the punishment shall be determined as ordered in light of the degree of negligence of the defendant, the degree of injury of the victim, the intention of punishment, etc.

However, the defendant has faithfully participated in the investigation and trial, and the social importance is clear, and efforts are made for the recovery of damage, so the court's detention is not required to give an opportunity to reach an agreement.