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 small-type taxi B.

Around 07:05 on May 13, 2013, the Defendant driven the above Sona taxi and proceeded at a speed of about 60km from the 3-lane of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the rock station along the three-lanes from the border of the river.

Since there is a place near the intersection in which a crosswalk is installed, a person engaged in the driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents by accurately manipulating the steering direction and brake system.

Nevertheless, due to negligence of neglecting this, the part on the right-hand bridge of the victim C(75 years old) crossing the road from the left-hand side of the taxi driving direction of the defendant was shocked into the front part of the defendant vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the above victim by occupational negligence, such as the pelle of the pelle electronic pelle, the pelle of the external pelle, and the lae of the external lap of the external lavae.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on traffic accidents and a report on actual condition;

1. Photographs, such as an accident site;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a medical certificate, a report on investigation (whether a victim is a serious injury), and a medical statement;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in the Selection of Punishment, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on community service and lecture attendance order is that the victim suffered serious injury expected to have a serious mental disorder due to the instant accident is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, at the time of the accident, the victim violated the signal even though the victim was not the pedestrian signal, and the victim's mistake appears to have caused the accident in light of the circumstances of the accident, and the taxi operated by the defendant is insured by the National Federation of Passenger Transport Business Association.