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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a B-Wood vehicle.

On January 9, 2015, at around 20:25, the Defendant continued the front way of the “Dcafeteria”, located in Chuncheon City C, along the two-lanes from the new north bank to the artificial theater.

At the time, the vehicle signal and crosswalk are installed at night and at the front door, so there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by safely driving the vehicle according to the traffic signal by reducing the speed and keeping the front door well.

Nevertheless, if the defendant neglected this and even if the signal is changed to a stop signal, it is due to the negligence of proceeding the signal as it is, using the crosswalk pursuant to the pedestrian signals, to find the victim E (n, 30 years old) late behind the left side and operate it to avoid this. However, the defendant did not avoid the contact and did not get the victim back to the ground by taking the front of the vehicle of the defendant.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence, such as cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral tys

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Medicine;

1. Photographs (fields and accident vehicles);

1. Each E statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to E;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommending punishment] is the case where the illegality in the area of aggravation (8 to 16 months) of the first type of traffic accident (the injury of traffic accident) [the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (the decision of sentencing [the decision of sentence] is the case where the defendant violated the signal and has violated the duty of protection of pedestrians on the crosswalk, and thus, is more negligent; ② the degree of injury to the victim is more severe; ③ the vehicle driven by the defendant is subscribed only to mandatory insurance and is subscribed to the comprehensive insurance.