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

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of Lone Star or Gohap.

On December 22, 2014, the Defendant driven the said vehicle as his duties around 18:00, and moved the crosswalks installed on the secondary line road in front of the EPublication Office located in Daegu Seo-gu, into the direction of the Gu GGG on the alley side.

Since there is a place in which a crosswalk is installed, in such a case, there was a duty of care to check whether there is a person who temporarily stops, reduces speed, and well sees the right and the right of the road, and to prevent the occurrence of an accident by driving safely.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and caused the victim F, who was standing a crosswalk from the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle to the left side by his negligence before the right side of the vehicle, to go beyond the ground floor.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered approximately 12 weeks from the above occupational negligence to pressure pressure 12, which requires the victim to receive approximately 12 weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The police statement concerning F;

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

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 3 (1), the proviso to Article 3 (2) and Article 3 (6) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in the Selection of Punishment, and Article 268 of the Criminal

1. The reason for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act was the injury of the victim due to the instant traffic accident for the reason of sentencing, but the defendant recognized his own negligence and reflects the fact that the victim was unable to punish the defendant, and the defendant's age, character, conduct and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc. are shown in the arguments of this case.