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 driving freight B and B.

On May 6, 2020, the Defendant driven the above cargo vehicles at around 11:45, and got the intersection of the Korea Water Resources Corporation, which is located in Seosan-ro 126, Seocheon-ro, Seocheon-ro, Seosan, to the right-hand left-hand turn from Cridge to the right-hand left-hand turn.

Since there is an intersection where signal lights and crosswalks are installed, there was a duty of care to check whether a person engaged in driving service has a way to reduce speed and to see well the right and the right and the right of the road, and to safely drive the road.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and neglected his duty at the front time, and did not discover the victim D who was crossing the crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian signals due to the negligence of protecting and left-hand turn to the left-hand turn of the vehicle proceeding, and did not discover the victim D (the age of 66) and had the victim go beyond the floor by receiving the victim from the front part of the above cargo vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as cutting the body at the bottom of the Bridge, which was accompanied by a non-alleys that require medical treatment for approximately 12 weeks of occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The actual condition of traffic accidents;

1. An accident site photograph, CCTV image, and incident-related photograph;

1. Report on internal investigation (victim D telephone communications);

1. A written diagnosis (the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that it is not an accident occurred at a crosswalk, but according to field photographs and CCTV images, it is clearly confirmed that the defendant shocks a victim who has dried the crosswalk, and thus the above argument is not acceptable). The application of the law is not acceptable.

1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) and Article 3 (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;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the victim on the crosswalk needs to be treated with 12 weeks.