A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On November 19, 2020, the Defendant was driving the B Obab on the side of the D elementary school located in the E from the E to the F apartment of the F apartment, and the Defendant was negligent by failing to perform the duty of care to safely drive the D elementary school in accordance with the traffic signals, to prevent the accident in advance, to pay attention to the safety of children, and to drive the F apartment. On the left side of the course, the Defendant got off the part of the victim G ( South, 7 years old) with a crosswalk on the left side of the road by moving the damaged part of the front part of the Obababa and moving the damaged part into the road with approximately three-day traffic weeks treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. A survey report, a internal investigation report (as to witness and telephone conversation statements), and a internal investigation report (as to whetherCCTV images and children protection zones are included);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the scene photograph of an accident;

1. Article 5-13 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing of Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the order to provide community service and attend lectures is not easy for the defendant to have inflicted bodily injury on the victim of seven years of age who dried the crosswalk by shocking the victim of the crosswalk with a motor device due to the defendant's negligence, who violated red signal in the child protection zone, and was in a direct fashion as it is, as it is, committed.

In light of the situation at the time of shock and the statements of witnesses, the strength of shock against the victim at the time of the accident seems to have been reasonable.

In consideration of this point, imprisonment shall be selected.

However, the defendant commits the crime of this case from the investigative agency.