beta
Text
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months, and by imprisonment without prison labor for four months, respectively.
However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, Defendant A.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. Defendant A is a person who is engaged in driving of D Poter cargo vehicles.
On March 25, 2016, the Defendant proceeded from the west-gu Station to the new elementary school about about 30 km from March 19, 2016.
At the time, there was a rain at the front of that place, and as a crosswalk was installed at the front of that place, there was a duty of care to check whether a person engaged in driving service was a person to reduce the speed and to check the right and the right and the right well and the right and the right and the duty of care to drive safely.
Nevertheless, due to the negligence of neglecting this, the Defendant’s failure to stand the above crosswalk, and the Defendant did not see the Victim G (the age of 77). As such, the Defendant got the head part of the Defendant’s truck and the left part of the victim’s head, and got the victim go beyond the ground, and continued to go to the H-business taxi of the B driving, which is going against the opposite part.
Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim by occupational negligence, such as cutting the body body, pulmonary damage, fladation under acute hump, and fladation of luminous bones, etc., which require approximately eight weeks of treatment.
2. Defendant B is a person engaged in driving a taxi for H business.
Defendant 1 had to turn to the peace market from the new elementary school of the same time, time, and place like the above 1. paragraph 1.
At the time, there was a rain at the front of that place, and as a crosswalk was installed at the front of that place, there was a duty of care to check whether a person engaged in driving service was a person to reduce the speed and to check the right and the right and the right well and the right and the right and the duty of care to drive safely.
Nevertheless, the defendant's negligence that neglected this and left left without being negligent, and the victim who was shocked by the cargo vehicle A and used on the crosswalk as stated in the above 1.