Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for ten 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 Clearning car.

On October 29, 2013, the Defendant driven the above car on the 11:30th of October 29, 2013, while driving the E-art, which is in front of the E-art D, along five-lanes from the Daegu to the border distance, was in front of the pedestrian signal of the crosswalk.

In this case, there was a duty of care to confirm whether a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle is a person who gets on the front side and right side well, and if he finds a person, he/she had a duty of care to temporarily stop his/her way of passage or yield his/her way.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and confirmed the fact that the vehicle's progress signal is changed from the red to green, and received the victim F who dried the crosswalk in front of the Defendant's car right side by negligence.

As a result, the Defendant suffered from the victim’s cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebralopty which requires treatment for at least six months due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G and H;

1. Each written diagnosis and a written statement on serious injury;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes as a result of inquiry into an I Hospital;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act regarding an order to provide community service and to attend a compliance lecture

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel on whether the defendant's vehicle shocks the victim, claiming that the victim was only go beyond his/her own and that there is no sufficient fact that the defendant shocks the victim.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of this case, namely, G who was a witness of the instant accident, are the court of this case.