A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving duty of Oralba.

At around 19:35 on May 13, 2019, the Defendant driven the above Oralba, which led the four-lanes of D, which are located in C, in the original city, to the 1 military headquarters room from the original intersection area.

There is a duty of care to prevent accidents by safely driving the crosswalk in accordance with the signals after checking whether a person walking on the crosswalk exists in the driver's service as a place where signal lights and crosswalks are installed.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and shocked the victim E (the age of 87) who walked along the crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian signals with the front part of the defendant's driving.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by the above occupational negligence, went away without taking necessary measures, such as aiding the victim, even though he/she suffered a sacrife with the inside of about four weeks of medical treatment, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. A written statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a survey report on actual conditions (1) (2), three on-site photographs, each investigation report, closure report, nine photographs, and a diagnosis report;

1. Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Although the crime of this case under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act was committed under the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, such as the nature and result of the crime, etc., in light of the method and result thereof, there is no criminal conviction of a fine or more, and there is no criminal conviction of the defendant, and since Oralone who was driven by the defendant at the time of the traffic accident of this case was covered by liability insurance, it seems that there is a certain change in damage to the victim. The defendant has reached an agreement with the victim. The defendant is in depth divided into his mistake, and the motive and circumstance of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime of this case, the defendant's age, occupation