The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a rocketing car.

On July 19, 2016, the Defendant was driving the above vehicle around 16:15, and started from the sidewalk to enter the road at the No. 13-ro, Seocheon-ro, Seocheon-ro, Seocheon-ro, Seocheon-do, and thus, the Defendant had a duty of care to check that the driver of the vehicle has no pedestrian driving the sidewalk, and to safely drive the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and neglected to report on the rear side of the Defendant, and received the parts of the victim D (the age of 51) who walked on the sidewalk from the rear side of the Defendant, as the rear side of the Defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as salt, tension, etc. in need of treatment for about two weeks due to such occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. A traffic accident actual condition survey report and a diagnosis report;

1. The act of violating the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the violation of Article 3(1) of the same Act shall be deemed a separate criminal act not identical inasmuch as the nature and content of the act, the nature of the crime, and the legal interest of damage, etc. are significantly different. Thus, even if a person who caused a traffic accident pays a penalty upon receiving a notice of notification by committing an act of violating the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, punishment for a crime of causing bodily injury by occupational negligence cannot be deemed as a double punishment prohibited under Article 119(3) of the Road Traffic Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4322, Apr. 12, 207).