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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a rocketing taxi.

On August 31, 2014, at around 08:29, the Defendant operated the said taxi from the new remote distance located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, thereby running the said taxi at a speed of about 70 kilometers per hour from the scopic basin to the scopic basin from the scopic basin.

At that time, there was an intersection for signal lights, so in such a case, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely operate the motor vehicle in accordance with good faith.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected such duty of care and neglected to enter an intersection on the front side of the signal and proceeded as it is, due to the negligence of entering the intersection from the front side of the signal, received the left side of the victim D (W, 63 years old) driving ES100 otobba in front of the right side of the taxi and suffered injury, such as a drupture of a non-fridge, which requires approximately eight weeks of treatment while the victim goes beyond the road.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The actual survey report on traffic accidents;

1. On-site photographs, black boxes, video CDs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

1. The relevant criminal facts, Article 3(1), proviso 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and Article 268 (Selection of Depository) of the Criminal Act, and the traffic accident was sent to the victim. In the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, the victim cannot be deemed to have been negligent in the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, the fact that the victim has paid the traffic accident twice in 2012 (a) has not been agreed with the victim, the fact that there was no agreement with the victim, the fact that the taxi was subscribed to the taxi mutual aid, the fact that there was no criminal record other than being punished by a fine due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act in 197, and the fact that there was no other opportunity to agree with the defendant in consideration of various sentencing conditions as shown in the pleadings