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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving Obane.

On October 14, 2017, the Defendant driven the off-to-face 12:18, and opened a two-lane road in front of Guro-gu Seoul, Guro-gu, Seoul, along one-lane distance.

On the one hand, the crosswalk and yellow-line line are installed at the front door, so it was confirmed whether a person engaged in driving the motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely operate the motor vehicle on the other hand, and on the other hand, the duty of care to safely operate the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and got the victim D (51) who walked along the crosswalkd by the central line in order to walk a bus parked for signal waiting on the front side of the defendant, and caused the victim D (51) who walked along the crosswalkd by the negligence of the central line, and caused the head to go beyond the floor.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence, such as blood transfusion from the left-hand side of the treatment days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Investigation report (Investigation of telephone conversations with witnesses E);

1. A report on a traffic accident, a survey report on actual condition, and a report on the occurrence of a traffic accident;

1. On-site photographs, on-site CCTV images, and village bus records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a medical certificate and a report on confirmation of the state of victim;

1. Determination as to the relevant legal provision on criminal facts, Article 3(1) and proviso of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents According to the Selection of Punishment, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and the Defendant’s assertion of choice of imprisonment without prison labor

1. The Defendant alleged that he/she was indicted for violating the duty to protect pedestrians, but the Defendant was indicted for violating the duty to protect pedestrians in light of the entire purport of the instant indictment (in particular, applicable legal provisions).