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

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a metropolitan bus No. 300.

On May 2, 2014, at around 19:49, the Defendant, along with the same-sexd airport located in 56 as the airport of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 2, 2014, continued to run approximately 56.25/57.6 km (hereinafter referred to as the speed of 60 km per hour) in the speed of 4 lanes, depending on the ero-laned side of the eroscopic basin.

At the same time, there was a crosswalk where signal lights were installed on the front of the crosswalk. At the same time, there was a traffic signal and a pedestrian signal until the bus of the defendant is close to the crosswalk. Accordingly, the other vehicle of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents by operating the motor vehicle with the attitude that can immediately stop if the signal is changed while the signal is stopped in front of the crosswalk, and pedestrians are waiting to cross the crosswalk. In addition, it is not possible to clearly confirm whether there was a person standing the crosswalk because the motor vehicle stopped in front of the crosswalk in the center of the bus where the defendant was travelling. In such a case, the person engaged in the driving of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to reduce speed in advance before reaching the crosswalk, and if there is a person failing to complete the crossing, he has to complete the driver's duty of care by operating the motor vehicle with the attitude that can stop immediately.

Nevertheless, although the Defendant used the vehicle stop signal and pedestrian signal until the front of the above crosswalk stop line 8 to the front of 9 meters, the Defendant continued to run without reducing the remaining speed that would be promptly changed to the vehicle driving signal in light of the usual experience, and when the vehicle signal was changed to the stop signal on the front of the above crosswalk, it was due to the negligence of not examining at all whether there was any person who has already entered the crosswalk.