교통사고처리특례법위반
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months.
However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above two years against the Defendants.
Punishment of the crime
1. Defendant A is a person who is engaged in driving a car of DM3.
On April 15, 2014, the Defendant, at the time of permanent stay around 19:50, continued to run a leap-section in the leap-dong in the leap-dong, the leap-section from the leap-section to the leap-section.
Since there was an intersection where signal lights are installed, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to live well on the right and the right and the right, and to safely drive the signal in a safe manner.
Nevertheless, even though the defendant neglected this, he was driven by the victim B (the aged 52) who was on the face of the door-to-face in the front part of the E B(the age of 52) which was driven by negligence in violation of the signal even though he was a stop signal, and was driven by the defendant in front of the EM3 car.
Ultimately, the Defendant suffered, by negligence in the above business, the injury to the victim B, such as salt, tensions, etc. in light of the influence of treatment for about 3 weeks, and the injury of disks No. 6-7, which requires approximately 14 weeks of treatment to the victim F (Nam, 90 years of age) who was on board the above SM3 Motor Vehicle Chief.
2. Defendant B is a person who is engaged in driving a Vietnam-style cruise car.
The defendant had been living in the above-mentioned lecomponed from the room to the lecomponed screen.
Since there was an intersection where signal lights are installed, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to live well on the right and the right and the right, and to safely drive the signal in a safe manner.
Nevertheless, even though the Defendant neglected this, the Defendant got the front part of the DSS3 car driven by the injured party A (the aged 74) who was in the front part of the DSS3 car that was driven by the Defendant due to the negligent negligence in driving the signal, in violation of the signal.
Ultimately, the Defendant is guilty of occupational negligence as above.