beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On May 1, 2015, the Defendant driving a BPP car at around 00:10, and waiting for signal at six-lanes in front of the Seocho-gu Seoul Western Arts Complex, Seocho-gu, Seoul.
From the view of the private party, it started with the vertical distance of art art.
In such cases, a driver of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to properly see the front side and the left side and the left side, and to accurately manipulate the steering and brakes so as to prevent the accident from occurring.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and continued to drive the back part of the DK5 business taxi driven by the victim C (year 75) in front of the same lane before the same lane, and due to its shock, continued to be the front part of the DK5 business taxi operated by the above C (year 55), and received the back part of the driver's seat of the H-business taxi driven by the victim E (year 56) who was in front of the taxi, with the front part of the 5 business taxi being pushed in front of the said taxi, and continued to drive the back part of the 5th driver's seat of the H-business taxi driven by the victim G (age 59).
Ultimately, the Defendant, due to the above occupational negligence, inflicted injury on the victim C and the victim E, such as salt tensions, tensions, etc., each of which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment, inflicted injury on the victim I (the victim I (the victim I, who is the passenger of the above K5 business-use taxi, 47 years old) in need of medical treatment for about 17 days, and suffered injury on the victim G, such as scopical salt scopages, etc. for about two weeks of medical treatment, and at the same time, got 5,251,198 won of the repair cost to reach KRW 5,251,198 of the above K5 business-use taxi, with the repair cost of KRW 1,584,878 of the repair cost, 615,178 of the repair cost, respectively, without taking necessary measures, such as immediately stopping the said H business-use taxi.
Summary of Evidence
1. The defendant;