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

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person engaging in a multi-regional bus driving service.

On January 23, 2017, the Defendant driven a bus around 08:40 on a day, and led to the rapid stop of the central bus stop located in the front bus lane of the F Hospital in Seoyang-gu, Youngyang-gu, Seoul.

At the time, a monthly attendance time is the night, and there is a lot near the bus stops in which crosswalks are installed at a speed of 60 km, and thus motor vehicles and people pass. As such, the defendant who is engaged in driving motor vehicles has a duty of care to prevent accidents by complying with the restricted speed, driving a motor vehicle by accurately and safely operating the steering and steering gear.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and continued to drive a speed exceeding 20 km per hour, and did not discover the victim G (n, 23 years old) who was a crosswalk on the right side from the left side of the bus operation direction of the Defendant, thereby facing the victim due to the negligence that the Defendant was unable to avoid the victim or to take measures such as timely reduction, etc., on the left side of the bus of the Defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as cutting the body body frame, which requires approximately 14 weeks of medical treatment due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The actual investigation report on traffic accidents;

1. Photographss related to traffic accidents;

1. A medical certificate;

1. The comprehensive analysis report of the Corporation;

1. The result of the appraisal commission to the Road Traffic Authority of this Court (the defendant and his defense counsel, the accident of this case caused the wind to cross the road for the victim himself, and even if the accident of this case occurred, the defendant driven at a limited speed.

Even if the accident in this case could not be avoided, so it is argued to the effect that there was no causal relationship between the defendant's overwork and the accident in this case.