Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

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

On October 30, 2019, the Defendant driven the above vehicle on October 22:15, 2019, and led to the course of driving the waterside from the Incheon bank according to the four-lane 4-lane 4-lane Doc in front of Ansan-gu, Ansan-si.

Since there is a road with a restricted speed of 60km, the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents by maintaining the restricted speed, checking the safety of the course, operating the steering and brakes accurately and safely.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded at a speed exceeding 21.97 km a speed of 81.97 km per hour, but did not look at the front side of the Defendant’s proceeding, and found the victim D (55 years old, south) who was walking ahead of the Defendant’s vehicle at the fourth-lane in the front direction of the Defendant’s proceeding, and did not take the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle. However, the Defendant did not escape from the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle and did not shock the victim.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence, i.e., an injury to the victim, such as an external wound, which had no wife in the middle of 20 weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

E Police protocol of statement for E

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there is no proximate causal relationship between traffic accident report, traffic accident report, accident-related photograph, accident-related photographic image analysis history, serious injury analysis report, and diagnosis letter that there is no proximate causal relationship between the error that the defendant proceeded under speed beyond the limited speed and the occurrence of the traffic accident.

In light of the above evidence, the defendant was found to have proceeded at a speed of about 81.97 km per hour, even though the speed of the location where the accident occurred between the vehicle operated by the defendant and the victim is 60 km per hour, and the defendant was able to properly take the front door.