However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a Cren car.

On May 3, 2014, at around 05:45, the Defendant driven the said car, and came to go straight from the king to the 1-dong Public Security Center, from the direction of the intersection to the intersection of the private distance near the king, which is located in the Sinpo City of Sinpo City.

Since there is an intersection where traffic control is not performed, there was a duty of care to check whether a person engaged in driving service has a cross-vehicles by reducing the speed or temporarily suspending the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and was driven by the victim D (Nam, 59 years old) driving from the right side of the Defendant’s running from the Defendant’s driving direction to the wale middle school. The Defendant was driven by the front part of the wale car with the Defendant’s driving.

The Defendant, by such occupational negligence, caused the victim D and the victim F (ma, 77 years old) who is the victim of the said taxi to suffer injuries, such as catum salt, etc. in need of treatment for about two weeks, and at the same time, destroyed the above taxi to have an amount equivalent to KRW 881,120, such as the exchange of cats, but failed to immediately stop the taxi and take necessary measures, such as providing relief to victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A survey report on the actual condition of a traffic accident, on-site, and photograph of an accident vehicle;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a written diagnosis, estimate, and written confirmation of medical treatment;

1. Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Articles 148 and 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the crime by applicable law;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (hereinafter referred to as the following grounds for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is as follows.