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

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in the driver's service of Bknife vehicle.

On May 27, 2014, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 18:40, while driving the vehicle, and driving the two-lanes of the Drown-gu Seoul Metropolitan City and the two-lanes of the front side of the Drown-gu, Sungnam-si, with about 30 K km in the direction of a weak distance from the long distance.

However, since there is a crosswalk where a signal, etc. is installed, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to check whether there is a person standing the crosswalk by reducing speed and by properly examining the front left, and to safely drive the crosswalk in accordance with the new code.

Nevertheless, by neglecting this, the Defendant neglected and proceeded with the vehicle driving signal without disregarding that the vehicle driving signal is changed to the stop signal, the Defendant left side of the crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian signal from the right side of the Defendant’s proceeding to the left side of the road.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as 12 weeks of medical treatment, due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. E statements;

1. Traffic accident report and investigation report;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 3 (1), the proviso to Article 3 (2) and Article 3 (1), Article 3 (2) 1 and 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents concerning Criminal Facts, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act lies in double gross negligence on the part of the Defendant, such as “violation of signal” and “violation of duty to protect pedestrians at crosswalks,” and the nature of the offense is heavy.

In this context, the defendant is suffering from the injury that requires about six weeks' medical treatment to pedestrians who have dried the crosswalks similar to the recent case in 2012.