Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six 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

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a motor vehicle with sod vehicle of C. C.

On July 8, 2017, the Defendant driven the above car at around 18:00 and moved the private distance intersection from the direction of the apartment at the end of each salary village to the intersection from the intersection to the intersection.

Since there is an intersection where signal lights are installed, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by driving safely according to traffic signals to those engaged in driving service.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and neglected that, while the traffic signal on the front side is red, and the traffic signal on the crosswalk has been occupied by the pedestrian signal in violation of the signal, the defendant got out of the right side of the victim FF (the age of 66)'s bicycle crossinging the bicycle in accordance with the pedestrian signals of the crosswalk in the right side of the crosswalk, when he has entered the crosswalk as it is due to the negligence of failing to comply with the signal.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as the need to give approximately 12 weeks of medical treatment due to occupational negligence, and the dives of the frame.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Investigation report (No. 6 No. 5 of the evidence list);

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

1. The following inquiry session and the driver’s license ledger [the defendant and his defense counsel were involved in the course of the right-handion, so it does not constitute a violation of signal. However, the Supreme Court precedents mentioned by the defense counsel (Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do3970, Jul. 28, 201; 2009Do8222, Jul. 28, 201) are all cases where an accident occurred after the right-handion was already launched at the private-distance intersection, and this case is an accident that occurred while proceeding along the crosswalk signal, etc. in the crosswalk signal, etc. before commencing the right-handion while being green, and the defendant committed a violation of signal.

In addition, there is a violation of signal among the above Supreme Court precedents.