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 drives a modern village bus B in the course of business.

On May 24, 2019, at around 09:20, the Defendant proceeded straight along the three-lane of the Suwon High Court among three-lanes of the horizontal distance protection area in the horizontal distance.

Since there is an intersection with a normally operated signal, in such cases, a person engaged in the driving of a motor vehicle shall safely drive the motor vehicle in accordance with the signals indicated by the signal apparatus, and there was a duty of care to prevent the traffic accident by checking whether there is a pedestrian driving along the crosswalk pedestrian signal.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and went beyond the ground by neglecting the victim F, who passed the crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian signal from the right side of the Defendant’s proceeding to the left side, due to the negligence of going against the signal while the vehicle driving signal was red.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim FF to suffer injury due to the above occupational negligence, i.e., the part in which the details of the relative body is unknown, which requires approximately seven weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement;

1. A traffic accident report, on-site photograph, etc.;

1. Investigation report (to hear the victim's F telephone statement);

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

1. Article 3 (1), the proviso to Article 3 (2) and Article 3 (1), Article 3 (2) 1 and 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents concerning Criminal Facts, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the order to provide community service and attend lectures is that the defendant suffered bodily injury by taking the victim who dried the crosswalk according to the pedestrian signal by negligence in violation of the signal, and the defendant's breach of the duty of care and the degree of injury to the victim are determined.