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

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a concrete mixed truck.

On February 3, 2018, the Defendant driven the above truck on February 14:35, 2018, and proceeded with a square distance from the Frithaullle, Young-dong, Young-gu, Young-gu, Samsung Electronic Tritha, to a zero-distance gate, while making a U.S. internship.

At this point, the left turn signal is the point where the U.S. can be a U.S., and the center line is installed, so a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by safely making a U.S. internship according to traffic signal at the permissible point of U.S.

Nevertheless, at a point of approximately 6 meters away from the Uton permitted section, the Defendant left the front part of the victim C (Nam, 19 years old) driving DMW 110WH Hatob, which was driven by the opposite madow line beyond the central line, due to the negligence in the course of duty, while the electric signal, etc. was red signaled, and had the victim going beyond the road shocked with the middle part of the above truck, and had the victim go beyond the road go back with the rear wheels of the above truck.

As a result, the Defendant caused the death of the victim due to such occupational negligence in accordance with the two openings of the above accident scene.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The E evidence list includes “A police statement” but C is the deceased and the police statement as “E’s police statement.”

1. Investigative reports, investigative reports (Attachment to a black screen that is closed by a suspect at the time of his/her internship), investigation reports (Attachment to a sign sign photograph), traffic accident reports, and internal investigation reports;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Hemorglympolym test;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the occurrence of the instant accident was not negligent by the defendant.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant sent a signal at a point below the permitted section for the internship.