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

Criminal facts

The defendant is a person engaged in dump truck driving.

On October 23, 2012, around 14:45, the Defendant continued to run a one-lane road in front of the “ballow stop for a short time store” located in the Namyang-si, Seoyang-si, Seoyang-si, Seoyang-si, with about 30 km each hour from the Jak-si to the Madle-si.

Since the place has a crosswalk where a signal, etc. is installed, the person engaged in driving duty was found to have a duty of care to check whether there is a person who gets on a road by reducing speed and by checking well the right and the right and the right of the road, and to safely drive the road in accordance with the new subparagraph.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and even though the vehicle driving signal was changed to a stop signal, the Defendant, on the left side of the truck driving direction, went beyond the ground by taking the front side of the victim D (the 3 years old), who dried the crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian signals, into the front side of the truck left side of the truck and let it go beyond the ground.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence, such as “the so-called “the so-called 1 growth plate was damaged) of the pelon abandonment on the left side (the so-called 1 growth plate was damaged) and other specified parts of the pelon and the disability of the skin.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

2. Legal statement of witness E;

3. A survey report on actual condition, CCTV images at the scene of an accident, and a comprehensive analysis report on traffic accidents;

4. Each medical certificate, opinion opinion, and the reason for sentencing under Article 3(1), proviso of Article 3(2)1, and proviso of Article 3(2)6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, the defendant violated the signal and caused serious injury to female children by violating the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalks, and thereby causing serious injury to them. The fact that the defendant has been punished for a traffic accident similar to this case in the past is that there was a history that the defendant had been punished for a traffic accident similar to this case.

On the other hand, the defendant is responsible for the result of the case.