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 engaged in driving a BM5 vehicle.

At around 23:30 on August 5, 2016, the Defendant driven the said car and proceeded at a speed of two-laned roads in front of the D, which are located in C at the time of leisure in south, from the direction of the small yacht stadium, at which it is impossible to identify one lane from the direction of the small yacht stadium.

Since there is a crosswalk where a signal, etc. is installed, it was confirmed whether a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to reduce the speed for the person engaged in driving service, and whether a person has a way to see the front door and the left door well, and to drive safely in accordance with the new subparagraph.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded without disregarding the change of the vehicle progress signal to the stop signal, and caused the victim E's bridge crossing the crosswalk from the right side to the left side in accordance with the pedestrian signals, and caused the victim's head to face with the front glass of the above vehicle, and caused the victim to go beyond the floor.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as crossing the right side of the 7-day radius, his superior, etc., which requires approximately 8 weeks of treatment due to such occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Evidence and photographs of the traffic accident scene;

1. Photographss by cutting a black stuff image;

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

1. Article 3 (1), the proviso to Article 3 (2) and Article 3 (1) 1 and 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the Selection of Imprisonment without prison labor for a crime;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the defendant does not have the same criminal history, and that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant's negligence is serious and the victim's injury is considerably serious is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of these circumstances, the text is followed.