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 a C observer car.

On May 10, 2014, the Defendant driven the said car at around 12:20, and driven the said car at a speed of about 20km in the speed of about 10km from the intersection to the intersection of the water source to the speed of about 20km in the direction of the flow distance.

Since there is a crosswalk in which a signal, etc. is installed, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to check whether there is a person who gets involved in driving service by reducing speed and by properly examining the right and the right and the right of the road, and to safely drive the road in accordance with the new subparagraph.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded with the part on the left side of the victim D (the age of 31) who dried the crosswalk from the right side to the left side of the crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian signals, by neglecting the fact that the vehicle progress signal is changed to the stop signal, and by neglecting it, the Defendant shocked the part on the front side of the car of the Defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury, etc. to the lower-class side of the bridge that requires approximately eight weeks of medical treatment due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each written diagnosis;

1. Article 3 (1), the proviso to Article 3 (2) and Article 3 (1), Article 3 (2) 1 and 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents concerning Criminal Facts, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do1148, Jun. 1,