However, 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 a BM3 car.

On July 16, 2018, the Defendant driven the said car on July 21:25, 2018, and driven the road of five-lanes in front of the D Hospital located in Daegu-gu C, Seogu, Daegu-gu, along one-lane distance from the reduction trine-distance to the 20km speed.

At the time, there were nights, and there were crosswalks where signals, etc. are installed at fronts, so there was a duty of care to safely drive a motor vehicle according to the signals by reducing speed and checking well the fronts of the motor vehicle driver.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and neglected to proceed in violation of the signal and received the right part of the Franb, which is driven by the victim E (the age of 36) who crossed the crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian signals, as the front part of the said car.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as the left-hand framework and the left-hand aggregate, which require approximately seven weeks of treatment due to such occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. E statements;

1. Report on the occurrence of a traffic accident, the actual condition survey report, and on-site photographs;

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

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is that the defendant has shocked the victim who dried a pedestrian crossing by violating the pedestrian signal, and due to the significant nature of the crime, the victim did not agree with the victim, but the defendant did not agree with the victim. Meanwhile, the crime of this case falls under criminal negligence, the victim was covered by liability insurance, and the victim has a considerable responsibility for governance of the pedestrian crossing, and the defendant is also liable for the accident.