beta
Text
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months, and by imprisonment without prison labor for four months.
However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. Defendant A’s criminal defendant is a person engaging in driving of D private taxi.
On May 19, 2013, the defendant driven the above taxi on May 02:46, 2013, and led the front intersection of the Taecheon apartment located in the Yak-gu Busan Metropolitan City, Busan to proceed along the three-lanes of the five-lanes from the intersection of the open intersection to the intersection of the two-lanes in writing.
At all times, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents by driving safely according to the new code to a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle on the intersection where signal, etc. is installed.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and received the front part of the instant taxi driving by the Defendant, which was driven by the victim B (the age of 54) who was on the left turn due to the negligence in violation of the signal, as the front part of the instant taxi driving by the Defendant.
The Defendant, by the above occupational negligence, suffered approximately three weeks from the victim F (the age of 39) who is the passenger of the Defendant’s vehicle, the victim F (the age of 39), such as a dyp dyp dyp fry, etc., which requires approximately 12 weeks of treatment, and the victim G (the age of 26) who is the passenger of the damaged vehicle, respectively, for approximately two weeks of treatment.
2. Defendant B is a person who is engaged in driving of a taxi for business purpose E.
The defendant driving the above taxi at the same time and place as referred to in the preceding paragraph, and driving the taxi along one lane between five lanes in the vicinity of the intersection in writing.
At this point, the speed limit was 60 km/h at the time, so there was a duty of care to make a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle with a limited speed of 20/100 speed reduced by 48 km/h.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded at a speed of 88.8km/h, and went to the left in violation of the signals as referred to in the preceding paragraph.