The Defendant is a person engaged in CK5 taxi driving services.

On July 7, 2012, the Defendant driven the above taxi on July 05:40, and continued to drive the said taxi at a point where the speed limit is 80 km per hour from the fest side of the government of the city at a point where the speed is 80 km per hour from the fest side of the Doodo in front of the Doodo in front of the Doodo in the Gancheon-si, the Defendant: (a) tried to change the course while driving the taxi at a speed exceeding 20 km per hour; (b) failed to accurately operate the steering direction and brake system; and (c) failed to operate the street lamps on the right side of the road at a speed exceeding 20 km per hour due to the negligence of the business, the Defendant shocked and continued the street lamps, etc. in front of the said taxi with the upper part of the left side of the said taxi.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim D (V, 30 years of age) who was on the back of the instant taxi due to such occupational negligence to receive approximately 16 weeks of medical treatment, such as the tent and the sloping plan, and the victim E (V, 25 years of age) to receive approximately 2 weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of E, D, and F;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. Matters concerning the speed verification of accident video;

1. Each written diagnosis;

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

1. Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of the alternative sentence of imprisonment without prison labor has already been sentenced to a suspended sentence due to traffic accidents, and the accident of this case occurred while the defendant had not been careful due to the recent traffic accidents, and without due care even during the suspended sentence period. Accordingly, the victims, especially D, suffered serious injury due to their lifelong disability and the mother to live together, and eventually, did not receive a letter of request even though they have suffered enormous pain.

Since the defendant is disqualified for a suspended sentence, it is inevitable to sentence him.