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 engaging in driving a rocketing taxi.

On September 23:55, 2014, the Defendant driven the above car and continued to drive the four-lanes of the five-lanes in Seoul Gangnam-gu, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, as Gangnam-gu., the four-lanes of the five-lanes of the 616-lanes from the shooting distance room of the Gu Hospital, at a speed lower than that of diving.

Since the place has an intersection where a signal, etc. is installed, it was confirmed whether a person engaged in driving service has a vehicle crossing by reducing speed and checking the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the duty of care to safely drive according to the new code.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and continued to proceed with a yellow signal before entering the intersection, and proceed with the stop signal along with the intersection, which is the left side of the Defendant, and by neglecting the signal, received the front part of the victim C(30 years old)'s driving (30 years old)'s driving from the south of the South-west intersection to the moving signal, which is the left side of the Defendant, as the front front part of the said taxi.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim C, such as the removal of a closed bridge, bones of the bones of underwater water, and the escape of underwater water, for about eight weeks of medical treatment due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The actual condition survey report;

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 criminal facts;

1. Alternative imprisonment without prison labor;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on community service and lecture attendance order [the scope of recommendations] of the Act on the Punishment of General Traffic Accidents (the scope of recommendations] that there is no basic area (the person who is a special person) (the decision of sentence) (the person who is a special person) (the decision of sentence] of Article 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Traffic Accidents (the decision of sentence).