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

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of CRano 5 tons of cargo vehicles.

On September 27, 2017, the Defendant driven an above cargo vehicle on September 27, 2017, and got straight along the intersection of E in front of D at the time of influence from the right side to the right side of both directions.

It is the intersection where signal lights and crosswalks are installed, so in such cases, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to safely drive according to the traffic signals by checking well the right and the right and the right of the road.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and followed the Defendant’s negligence in proceeding in violation of the signal and received from the right side of the cargo vehicle to the left side of the victim F (70 cm) who dried the crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian signals from the right side of the cargo vehicle to the right side of the above cargo vehicle.

As a result, the Defendant suffered from the above occupational negligence on 12 weeks brain ties with no wife in the two markets where the victim needs to receive approximately 12 weeks medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Report on a traffic accident (written investigation 1, 2);

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents Aggravated Punishment, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of imprisonment without prison labor, concerning criminal facts;

1. The traffic accident of this case for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended execution of the Criminal Act is the sufficient measure of the defendant against the victim who dried the crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian signals in violation of the signal of pedestrian signals; the criminal records of the defendant; the degree of damage to the victim; the vehicle driving by the defendant is insured; the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant; the family relationship of the defendant; and the defendant is against the wrongness of the defendant; and the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of this case are determined the same as the order.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.