However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of B Poter cargo vehicles.

On October 6, 2019, the Defendant driven the above cargo vehicles around 13:23, and led the Defendant to make a right right right right right right right right right right right right right right at the front of the Da, which is located in the Mannam-si C, Sungnam-si.

At the same time, a crosswalk without signal lights was installed on the front door, so in such a case, there was a duty of care to check whether a person engaged in driving service is a person who gets on a way to reduce the speed and to check the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right are well and to drive safely.

Nevertheless, the Defendant failed to discover the victim F who was crossing the crosswalk due to negligence while neglecting this, and did not find the victim F who was crossing the crosswalk (the age of 69) and got the victim to go beyond the victim with the front top of the cargo vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence, i.e., an injury to the victim, such as an injury of an external wound, which had no wife in the middle of 8 weeks of open medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. The application of the F’s legal statement by the defendant to the traffic accident report, the site photograph of the accident, the ledger of driver’s license, the chassis, the medical certificate, the certificate of subscription to the comprehensive automobile insurance, the investigative report and the Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act: Circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstance after the crime, etc., and criminal law, such as the fact that the degree of negligence and degree of damage of the defendant are more favorable to the degree of damage caused by the accident of crosswalks: recognition of and reflect on crimes, the fact that the vehicles are covered by comprehensive insurance, the fact that the defendant did not have the same criminal history.