beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Criminal facts
On August 29, 2014, the Defendant driven a Gyeonggi Daba on a 20:50-round August 29, 2014, and continued to run a stop signal at the seat of the 15-day light village village 8 complex in front of the Hoba-si. On the ground of the occupational negligence, the Defendant violated the stop signal and proceeded as it is. On the left side of the Defendant’s course, the victim D (e.g., 57 years old) who walked the crosswalk under the pedestrian signals with the right side of the pedestrian signals.
As a result, the Defendant suffered from the victim’s occupational negligence, which requires approximately eight weeks of medical treatment.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
2. Written statements of D;
3. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the actual survey report and diagnosis report;
1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 3 (1), the proviso to Article 3 (2) 1 and 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in the Selection of Punishment, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act;
2. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 60(3) of the Juvenile Act are the factors for sentencing unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant violated the duty to protect pedestrians in crosswalks, and the duty to observe traffic signals, causing serious injury to the victim.
On the other hand, all of the facts charged of this case are elements of sentencing favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognizes and reflects all of the facts charged of this case, the fact that the defendant was insured by the Oralone who driven the defendant, and the defendant has no criminal history
Furthermore, the sentencing data expressed in the arguments, such as the character, character and environment of the defendant, were taken into account, and the sentencing guidelines formulated by the Sentencing Commission also refer to the sentencing guidelines for traffic crimes.