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 the duty of driving the tea B.

Around 09:10 on October 30, 2019, the Defendant driven the above van, and left the front direction of the Seoul Western-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, from the D apartment side, to the drinking saves box at a speed of about 18km per hour.

In such cases, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents, such as making a person engaged in the driving of a motor vehicle well seeing the right and the right of the motor vehicle, and accurately operating the steering and brakes, etc.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and did not discover the victim E (the aged 78) who illegally crossed the above intersection from the left side of the direction of the proceeding to the right, and received the victim as the front part of the above line.

Ultimately, around November 2, 2019, at around 19:53, the Defendant caused the death of the victim by occupational negligence from G located in F in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to brain liver function.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the accused and the report of traffic accident by the accused and the closure of a black stuff;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a death diagnosis report (verification of details of excessive medical treatment) and traffic accident analysis report;

1. 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;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. is that the defendant was punished twice by an old age, and there was no previous conviction for the past 20 years, and there was no record of traffic offense or traffic accident for the same period, and the victim's negligence without permission crossing a 5-distance crossing with respect to the occurrence of the above accident was very large, and the vehicle driven by the defendant was covered by the motor vehicle comprehensive insurance to which the above accident applies, and the victim's heir was not punished.