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

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of small cargo vehicles B and B.

On March 7, 2016, the Defendant driven the above vehicle on March 16:58, 2016, and continued to drive the vehicle on the front side of the public bus platform located 13 times in the south-west-gun, public-purpose bus platform.

Since there is a wide distance intersection where the movement of a vehicle is frequent, a person who intends to drive a motor vehicle and drive a motor vehicle had a duty of care to safely proceed by checking whether there is a motor vehicle driving the intersection.

Nevertheless, the defendant was driven by the victim C(87 tax) who was driving on the left-hand side from the right-hand side of the defendant's running direction due to the negligence that the defendant got off the defendant's driving vehicle after loading the defendant's driver's vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered an injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence, such as the impairment of pedestrian disability and recognition function due to the cerebrovascular symptoms.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A written diagnosis, a written request, and a written request;

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

1. Evidence and photographs at the accident scene;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (related to the relevant injury and the progress of agreement among victims);

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. Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing) [Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Do1448, Apr. 2, 2006)]

Since it cannot be seen, a judgment dismissing a public prosecution shall not be pronounced (Provided, That it shall be considered as an element of sentencing).