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

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of C5 tons met trucks.

On August 25, 2014, at around 04:24, the Defendant driven the above cargo, and led to the left-hand turn from the side of the Eup/Myeon to both sides of the monthly transmission distance.

Since there is a cross-section where signal lights are installed, there was a duty of care to proceed to a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle according to good faith.

Nevertheless, despite a yellow signal, the Defendant received the front part of the drine 125 cc U.S. on the left side of the cargo vehicle, which was driven by the victim D (the 26-year-old) who was in violation of the signal from the upper side to the original side by negligence by failing to comply with the signal, and received the front part of the drine 125 cc.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim to die due to the above occupational negligence at around 04:42 of the same day due to the diversified long-term damage, excessive surgery, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

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

1. On-site photographs;

1. A corpse of corpse;

1. Gabbbbox image flafing photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning postmortem records;

1. Relevant 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, and Selection of imprisonment without prison labor, concerning criminal facts;

1. The defendant's negligence, which violated the reason for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as "the grounds for sentencing"), is not less vulnerable to the defendant's negligence, and the result of damage is very serious due to the victim's death, and the defendant's negligence in violation of the suspension signal is also considered to have contributed to the occurrence of the accident and the expansion of the result of damage, and the bereaved family members do not wish to punish the defendant.