A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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 a KS7 car.

On August 2, 2018, the Defendant driven the above vehicle on August 19:17, 2018, and driven the road of four lanes in front of Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City at the speed of the Seoul Metropolitan City, along the one-lane toward the Seoul large area.

Since there is a crosswalk with a signal apparatus installed, in such a case, there was a duty of care to safely drive the vehicle to the person engaged in driving, and to prevent the accident in advance by checking whether there is any person who will wear the crosswalk in accordance with the signals.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and did not discover the victim E (the 32 years old) who has passed the crosswalks without disregarding the signal while driving, even though the signal apparatus of the vehicle was red signal, and did not discover the direction of the victim E (the 32 years old) who passed the crosswalks, and shocked the front wheels of the above motor vehicle with the right side of the Defendant's driving vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by negligence in the above occupational negligence, sustained injury by images, etc. on the right side of the number of days of treatment, and escaped without immediately stopping and taking necessary measures.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. The report on traffic accidents and the inspection report on the actual condition, and the inspection of the enemy;

1. Blue boxes and video CDs;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant violated the signal at the time of the case, but they did not conflict with the victim E's Oba, even if there was a conflict, even if the defendant did not recognize it, and that E did not escape because he did not leave the place. However, according to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, i.e., the defendant's video installed on the defendant's vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the case.