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 a Cable vehicle.

On March 7, 2012, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 11:20 on March 7, 2012, and continued to turn to the left at the intersection of the 2nd parallel of the Yongpo-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul.

Since there is an intersection where a signal, etc. is installed, the driver had a duty of care to prevent accidents by checking well the right and the right of the driver according to the signals.

Nevertheless, due to the negligence of left-hand turn on the red signal which is a vehicle stop signal, the Defendant received the part of the front-hander part of the victim D (I, 35 years old) driving, which was driven to left-hand turn from the left-hand edge of the National Assembly at the right edge of the Defendant, with the front-hander part of the said vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury, such as salt, tension, etc. in the 17th day of pregnancy by occupational negligence, which requires the victim to receive treatment for mooring heritage and approximately 2 weeks of pregnancy.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement on the occurrence of D traffic accidents;

1. A traffic accident report (1) (2);

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

1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Part concerning the dismissal of public prosecution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that the victim has agreed smoothly with the victim and the fact that only one of the fines has been punished once);

1. The summary of the facts charged was damaged so that the amount equivalent to KRW 5,230,617, such as cost of repair, such as the exchange of dyp-fyp-fyd vehicles by negligence as stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the Defendant.

2. In the judgment of the court, the charge of causing the negligence is a crime falling under Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intent under the main sentence of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. The victim D shall be the victim of this case.