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 library bus.

On May 12, 2015, the Defendant driven the above bus as a job around 09:03, and continued the front side road in front of the Seoul Southernbuk-gu, Seoul, into the front side of the C at the Dobong-ro.

It is a child protection zone adjacent to the chemical elementary school, so a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to maintain a speed of less than 30 km, and to avoid being injured by a child's body by driving in the protection zone.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and got the victim D (seven years of age) who was walking in the same direction as before the right-hand side of the defendant's vehicle to go beyond the road by shocking the front side of the defendant's vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered from the victim’s occupational negligence such as requiring approximately six months of medical treatment, and the closure of a multi-druplicative body.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on traffic history (1) (2) (the actual survey report);

1. A medical certificate;

1. Blucking images;

1. Application of statutes on the site and vehicle photographs;

1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents concerning Criminal Facts; Article 268 of the Criminal Act; Selection of imprisonment without prison labor;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing in Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommendations] general traffic accidents of category 1 (the injury caused by traffic accidents) (the person subject to special mitigation) [including the person subject to special mitigation] [the decision of sentence] and the person subject to serious injury to the victim due to traffic accidents in child protection zones. The criminal liability of the defendant is very heavy.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflected, the above vehicle of the defendant was covered by a comprehensive insurance, and the defendant was the victim.