교통사고처리특례법위반
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for eight months.
except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
Around 00:53 on January 6, 2013, the Defendant was driving a Drocketing taxi and started to run the mast from the surface of the two-lanes located in Bridge-dong, west-gu, west-gu, west-gu, the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes. At night, at that time, the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lane. Since the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes, the Defendant was at night and the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the speed, and the vehicle driver was at the speed of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-way, so the Defendant was negligent in performing the duty of care to prevent traffic accidents by operating the steering and the brake system accurately at the expense of the Defendant.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Statement of the prosecution and the police interrogation of the accused;
1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;
1. Application of the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes on comprehensive analysis of traffic accidents, such as a survey report on actual condition, on-site photographs, virtual car booms image photographs, walking prohibition and speed signs at the scene of the accident, death certificate, and death certificate;
1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, the selection of imprisonment without prison labor for a crime;
1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence of the Criminal Act, the Defendant’s defense counsel: (a) the instant accident occurred while the Defendant, who was able to walk on the road due to his own road in a state of visible view by lighting the high-speed road where walking is prohibited; and (b) accordingly, even if the Defendant complied with the restricted speed, the Defendant was negligent in failing to avoid the accident.