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 engaged in driving freight vehicles B and B.

On December 28, 2017, at around 16:56, the Defendant had the road front of the Incheon Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D's C's D' turn to the F's store from the side of the E's school.

There was a duty of care to prevent accidents by properly manipulating the steering system, steering system, and brake system to the person engaged in driving of the motor vehicle as a road with people's lives.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected his/her duty in front of the Defendant’s vehicle due to his/her negligence while driving in front of the Defendant’s vehicle (or 73 years of age) and caused serious injury to the 1st degree of cerebral disease caused by an influence of treatment days due to an influence of treatment days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes as a result of CD reproduction;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents Aggravated Punishment, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Sentencing criteria [Scope of Recommendation] General traffic accident category 1 (Bodily Injury resulting from Traffic Accidents) (one month to eight months) (including specially mitigated persons), the area of mitigation (including serious efforts to recover damage);

2. The instant traffic accident, the sentence of which was determined, led to the occurrence of serious consequences of the victim’s injury of the first degree of brain-disease disability.

The victim is currently unable to communicate or make a daily life.

However, the defendant paid the victim's 40 million won to the victim's children and made efforts to recover the damage seriously, and the victim's children do not want to be punished.

Although the victim agreed with the child, it is not possible to confirm the truth because the victim cannot communicate at present. Thus, the above agreement cannot be deemed as an expression of intent that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant.