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

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a Bsch Rexton car.

On December 30, 2017, the Defendant driven the above car at around 10:03, while driving it along three-lanes from the direction of the sound distance to the trining distance.

Since there is a crosswalk in which a signal, etc. is installed, there was a duty of care to check whether a person engaged in driving service has a way to reduce the speed and to see well the right and the right of the road, and to prevent the accident in advance by driving safely in accordance with the new subparagraph.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and continued to proceed at the same speed while the signal was changed to the stop signal of the vehicle, and caused the left body part of the victim D(W, 13 years old) to the left part of the road on the right side by using the crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian signals according to the pedestrian signals.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence, such as cutting off and closing the framework of the body part of the body part of the body part of the body part in need of approximately six weeks of treatment, and cutting down and closing the body part of the bridges below.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement on the occurrence of D traffic accidents;

1. A survey report on actual conditions;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on black booms CDs

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. Although a yellow signal has been changed to a yellow signal prior to entering the intersection for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution, it is large that the victim who walked on the crosswalk pursuant to the new subparagraph violated his/her duty of signal and pedestrian protection, and committed excessive harm to the victim who walked on the crosswalk pursuant to the new subparagraph. In addition to the fine once in 2010, there is no criminal punishment other than once, the victim was erroneous that the pedestrian signal was served on the crosswalk immediately, and the victim was purchasing the motor vehicle comprehensive insurance.