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 driving a B-learning car.

On May 4, 2020, the Defendant driven the above car at around 18:08, and operated the front road C at the Dongbcheon-si, Gyeonggi-do, with a speed of about 50 km from D to the parallel.

Since there is a two-lane road near the entrance of an apartment with a crosswalk, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle, such as reducing the speed and preventing accidents by checking well the right and the right of the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and sustained injury to the victim E ( South, 10 years old) who was frighting from the front line of the said vehicle due to the occupational negligence, which led the victim E ( South, 10 years old) who was frighting from the front line of the said vehicle, and caused the victim to suffer injury to sexual brain damage, etc. for which approximately 12 weeks of treatment is required for approximately 12 weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (the confirmation of CCTV near the site of this case and the confirmation of witnesses' camblings) by a medical certificate (E) and a general opinion on the investigation into the actual status of a traffic accident by a defendant

1. Relevant Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents Aggravated Punishment, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of imprisonment without prison labor, concerning criminal facts;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act in the suspension of execution is deemed to have violated the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk, and the degree of violation of the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk is serious, and when considering the speed of the defendant's vehicle, it is proceeding at a speed close to the speed of the restriction on the road in question, and thus, it seems that no measures were taken to reduce the speed of the crosswalk, and the defendant was unaware of the fact that the investigative agency

If there is a possibility of criticism, it seems that the victim is responsible for the care of the victim, who is a pedestrian, even though he made a statement, and the degree of the victim's injury is considerably more severe and this is therefore.