The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who drives a Grandroth in the course of performing his duties.

On August 5, 2014, the Defendant driven the above cargo vehicle around 17:05, and proceeded to the 50-lane 28-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, about the 50-lane from the border elementary school.

Since there is a place where children's traffic is frequent in children's protection zones, in such a case, a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle has a duty of care to accurately operate steering and brakes, and to prevent accidents due to the intention of protecting children's safety while properly examining the boom and left and right of the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and led to the Defendant’s fault, and followed the right side of the Victim C (the age of 11) who dried up to the left 215 km from the right side of the GaS convenience direction toward the left side of the GaS direction, with the front wheels of the Defendant’s vehicle.

As a result, the Defendant suffered approximately two weeks of medical treatment from the victim due to the above occupational negligence. In addition, the Defendant suffered the right side salt and tension.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement prepared in C;

1. The actual survey report on traffic accidents;

1. Investigation report (accident site);

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to the Investigation Report (CCTV);

1. Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Special Cases concerning the Selection of Punishment, Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the selection of fines;

1. A fine of 700,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,00 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse;

1. 선고유예 형법 제59조 제1항(교통사고 후 사고신고 등 조치를 취하였고 다행히 피해자가 크게 다치지는 않은 점, 잘못을 인정하면서 반성하는 점, 당시 피해자가 뛰어서 길을 건넜고 피해자 방향에 주ㆍ정차하고 있던 불상의 탑차가 시야를 가리고 있었던 점 등 참작) 이상의 이유로 주문과 같이 판결한다.