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

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle B with detached motor vehicles.

On June 7, 2017, the Defendant, around 21:00, proceeded around 512-ro, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, with approximately 89.1km in Si/Gu office, from the examination gate to the Si office gate.

Since the restriction speed is 60 km per hour, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent the accident in advance by safely driving the driver of the motor vehicle by taking the front door and the left and right well and safely observing the restricted speed.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was negligent in proceeding with a speed exceeding 29.1km and left and left well, and took the victim C (55) who dried a road on the left-hand side from the right-hand side of the above vehicle as the front part of the above vehicle, and suffered an injury, such as a non-freshing alley that requires treatment for about six months for the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A survey report on actual conditions;

1. Investigation report (victim C telephone conversations);

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on black stuffs;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following extenuating circumstances in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc. of the same Act is that the Defendant, while driving a motor vehicle remarkably in excess of the restricted speed, neglected his/her duty of care and thereby neglecting his/her duty of care, resulting in the instant crime of which the victim would suffer serious injury to the road by shocking the victim. However, since the damaged vehicle is covered by a comprehensive insurance, it seems that there would be no hindrance to the recovery of the victim's damage. The victim does not want to be punished by the victim, the victim's mistake was dissipated, the latter is late, and the pedestrian signal is not a pedestrian signal.