However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a sports engine B bicycle.

On March 24, 2018, the Defendant: (a) driven a bicycle for a motor device at issue; (b) proceeded to the front road of the D. D.’s industrial company located in Young-gu, Young-gu; and (c) had a duty of care to prevent accidents by accurately manipulating the front and right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right

Nevertheless, the defendant was negligent in driving the road as it is while driving the road as it is and received the parts of the victim E (60) who cross the road as the front part of the motor device bicycle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered severe injury to the victim by occupational negligence, such as external shocks and pelkes, which require approximately 18 weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the police against the defendant;

1. Reports on the occurrence of a traffic accident;

1. On-site photographs of each accident;

1. Each written diagnosis;

1. Application of the statutes governing USB, such as site CCTV;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents According to the Selection of Punishment, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of imprisonment without prison labor;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 60(3) of the Juvenile Act

1. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant could not anticipate the unauthorized crossing when considering the time, place, etc. of the instant accident, and even considering the specific circumstances at the time, the victim could not be avoided, and the victim did not have a duty of care to drive when expecting the unauthorized crossing in the state of exploitation. Therefore, the principle of trust should be applied.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged in light of each of the evidence in the holding, it was possible to anticipate the unauthorized crossing of the instant site, and driving service.