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

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year 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 B.

On December 3, 2018, the Defendant driven the above car at around 05:20, and driven the two-lane of the two-lane in the direction of the C in the direction of the D, the two-lane in the direction of the D, the two-lane in the direction of the D, the two-lane in the direction of the D.

At the time, there is still a new wall time in the vicinity, and there is a crosswalk installed at the front door, so in such a case, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to check whether there is a person who gets on the way to reduce speed and to see well the right and the right and the right and the right, and to safely drive the vehicle.

Nevertheless, by negligence that the defendant neglected this and left left, the defendant did not discover the victim E (or the 73 years of age) who dried the crosswalk to the right side from the left side of the direction of the coming-way of the defendant, but did not find the victim E (or the 73 years of age) and received the part of the victim's body as the left side of the driver's car and

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the above victim, such as a cage cage cage cages, etc., which requires approximately six weeks of medical treatment due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A statement of the occurrence of the F's traffic accidents, investigation report (statements by arbitr), - A e-mail statement;

1. A photograph of a traffic accident report by cutting CCTV;

1. Each medical certificate, investigation report (additional medical certificate) and defense counsel asserted that the victim has entered the crosswalk immediately before the accident occurred because the victim was lowered according to the central separation zone, and it cannot be deemed the victim who has passed the crosswalk, and even if the defendant fulfilled his/her duty of care, such as the duty of front-time watch, etc., the victim could not be found. Thus, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the victim got off the road according to the central separation zone prior to the occurrence of the accident, but the victim was found to have not been negligent.