However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of B-si.

On August 21, 2015, the Defendant driven the above taxi on August 21, 2015, and let him turn to the left at the seat of the Seoul Nowon-gu Police Station in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu and relay the private street road.

Since there is a crosswalk, there was a duty of care to check whether or not a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a way to reduce speed and to check well the right and the right of the motor vehicle, and to prevent the accident in advance by driving the motor vehicle safely.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and got the victim C (the 70-year old) who crossed the crosswalk to the right side from the left side of the taxi driving in the direction of the defendant's taxi to the right side in accordance with the pedestrian signals.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence, such as the upper part of the water table, the upper part of the water table, the upper part of the water table, and the upper part of the river table, which require approximately eight weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C’s statement;

1. A traffic accident report (1) (2) (2)

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

1. Relevant Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents Aggravated Punishment and Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Application of the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] The basic area (from April to October) (the person who is subject to special sentencing) of the types of general traffic accidents; and

2. The defendant's liability for the crime of this case is not minor, and the defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim, on the ground that the victim, who dried the crosswalk pursuant to the pedestrian signals in the decision of the sentence of sentence, caused an injury requiring approximately eight weeks of medical treatment.

However, the defendant recognized his mistake and reflected his mistake.