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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a B M& car.

At around 15:10 on September 27, 2018, the Defendant driven the said car from the Furging plane in front of the petition-gu C apartment D, the C apartment at the time of Chungcheongbuk-do, to the Agricultural Cooperative Sag-ro.

Since there is no signal signal, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to safely drive a crosswalk by accurately operating the steering direction and brake system before entering the road, by temporarily stopping and driving on the road before entering the road, and by checking well the right and the right of the road.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected such duty of care and went ahead to the left side of the taxi vehicle which was stopped in front of the intersection, which is a place where the overtaking is prohibited, and due to the negligence of failing to temporarily stop in front of the crosswalk before the crosswalk, and caused the victim G (8 years old) who passed the crosswalk to the vehicle of the Defendant, and caused the victim to suffer approximately 10 weeks of opening the body of the runway, which requires approximately 10 weeks medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each statement of H and G;

1. Reporting on the occurrence of a traffic accident, reporting on a traffic accident, reporting on internal investigation, and reporting on an investigation (verification of black stay images);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs at the scene of an accident, photograph of a video closure, family relation certificate, diagnostic certificate, and CCTV image data;

1. Article 3(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, and Article 268 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (the defendant and his defense counsel confirmed that there was no pedestrian on the facts charged of this case and that there was no pedestrian on the crosswalk, and that most of the facts charged of this case, when entering the crosswalk, the victim was faced with his own ability or the vehicle of the defendant, and therefore, the defendant did not violate the duty