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 who drives B taxi.

On April 19, 2013, the Defendant driving the said taxi as his duties around 09:55 on April 19, 2013, and proceeding the 163-way road in front of the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Subdivision from the direction of the Gando High School.

The left turn to the Rool-do is going to the left.

At the time, the road where the defendant was going to turn to the left was installed, so the defendant had a duty of care to prevent accidents by temporarily stopping the crosswalk and safely driving the crosswalk after living well at the same time.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected and proceeded with it, and caused the victim C (the age of 62) who dried the crosswalk to the front part of the defendant's taxi.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury by the victim, such as the pressure pressure duplicating the second-time therapy, which requires approximately eight weeks of medical treatment due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. The actual survey report on traffic accidents;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to copies of diagnosis certificates;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 3 (1), proviso to Article 3 (2) and Article 3 (6) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents According to the Selection of Punishment, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act [the decision of type] traffic crime, general traffic accident, and type 1 [the scope of recommendation] [the decision of sentence] of imprisonment without prison labor for April - 10 (basic area] (the decision of sentence] of October - the defendant has paid a traffic accident in violation of the pedestrian protection obligation of the crosswalk, the degree of injury to the victim is serious, and the agreement with the victim was not reached, etc., the nature and circumstances of the crime are not good.

However, the defendant was subject to criminal punishment for the last ten years.