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

The defendant is a person who is engaged in the operation of buses C.

On January 10, 2014, the Defendant driven the above bus at around 19:40, and passed through the direction of the Office of Mine Eup in the direction of Mari-ri, depending on one-lane between the two-lanes.

At night, the location of the vehicle is frequent due to the frequent traffic of the string, mat, storm, etc., and the crosswalk without signal apparatus was installed on the front door. In such a case, the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to look at the front door well, and to proceed with the string by checking whether there is a pedestrian who strings the crosswalk.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was negligent in the course of business, without checking whether there is a pedestrian who walked a crosswalk, and without examining the front side, followed the victim F (the south and the age of 54) who dried the crosswalk to the left side of the direction of the Defendant’s proceeding by taking the front part of the bus into the right side of the bus, and suffered approximately eight weeks of medical treatment for the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. The police statement concerning F;

3. Reports on traffic accidents, on-site photographs;

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

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, 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 in the Selection of Punishment, and Article 268 of

2. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant, in violation of the duty to protect pedestrians at crosswalks, suffered serious injury to the victim, etc. is an element for sentencing unfavorable to the Defendant.

반면 피고인이 이 사건 공소사실을 모두 인정하며 반성하는 점, 피고인이 운전한 버스가 공제조합에 가입된 점, 피고인이 최근 피해자를 위하여 200만 원을 공탁한 점, 피고인이 지금까지 범죄 전력이 없는 점, 노모(老母)를...