A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 07:30 on January 6, 2014, the Defendant driven a D-car in front of the Haak Educational Research Institute at the front of the Haak Educational Research Institute at the Cheongju City, and turn it to the left in the direction of a reasonable park from the direction of the former court distance.

In such a case, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to accurately operate the front side and the right and the right and the right and the right and to prevent an accident by accurately operating the steering direction and the steering gear, but the defendant neglected to do so, and by negligence, the victim E (n, 40 years old) walking on the left side of the defendant's vehicle toward the crosswalk at the left side of the road.

As a result, the Defendant did not take necessary measures, such as aiding the victim at the site, even though the Defendant suffered injury, such as damage to the lag in an open room within the lecture that requires approximately eight weeks of medical treatment due to such occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Some statements in the police interrogation protocol of the accused (the purport that there is a string and unstopping of the accused, even if they seem to have the wind between them)

1. Recording records;

1. Statement of initial action at the scene of a traffic accident, actual situation investigation report, and table of request for appraisal (No. 15 of the evidence list);

1. Certificate of diagnosis (Evidence Nos. 7) and certificate of a copy of medical records;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that he was innocent because he did not know the occurrence of the accident, and the defendant did not have any intention to flee.

According to the above macroscopic evidence, the above argument is rejected, since all facts of the judgment can be recognized.

The degree of perception of the facts of the victim caused by an accident is not necessarily required to be confirmed, but it is sufficient to recognize even if it is dolusent, and the accident occurs on the other hand.