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

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

Punishment of the crime

On October 9, 2017, the Defendant driving of the sports cargo vehicle C, while driving the above vehicle at around 11:45 on October 9, 2017, led the Defendant to drive at a speed of about 136 km from the right side to the right side of the road in front of the Gyeongnam Development-gun.

At this point, the road is be bend, so it is not easy to secure the view of the front, and the road was 60 km speeded at the speed limit where the center line of yellow-ray is installed, so the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to drive the vehicle in compliance with traffic order, such as reducing the speed, checking the right and the right of the front and the right and the right of the center, not harming the center line, and observing the speed limit.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and was negligent in driving the center line at a speed of about 76 km per hour exceeding 136 km per hour while driving the center line at a speed of about 136 km, and received the part on the left side of the driver’s vehicle driven by the victim E (W, 5 years old) who was driving in the direction opposite to the Defendant’s moving direction.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as catum salt in need of approximately three weeks of treatment due to occupational negligence as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A report on the occurrence of a traffic accident and a report on actual condition investigation;

1. Results from reproducing a video image of a black box;

1. A report on internal investigation (Attachment of an appraisal report on driving speed of 1 Meet vehicles), investigation report (Attachment of a medical certificate);

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the Defendant did not commit an offense over the speed exceeding the speed limit, but the Defendant did not commit an offense. However, according to the evidence, especially the fact that the Defendant had a median line over the rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle as a result of the reproduction of the video of the black stuff, etc., it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was faced with the Victim’s driver’s vehicle by breaking the central line at the time of the instant accident.

The laws and regulations;