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 engaged in the duty of driving Cren vehicles.

On July 27, 2012, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 05:00, and proceeded at a speed of about 81 kilometers per hour, depending on one lane from the 4rd side of Sungnam-gu, Daejeon to the intersection of three-lane distance in front of the members set forth in the sub-dong-gu, Daejeon.

Since the location has a crosswalk on which signal lights are installed and the speed limit is 60 kilometers every hour, the person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to check whether there is any person who gets on the way to reduce the speed and to check the right and the right and the right and the right and the right are well and to drive safely in accordance with the new code.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected such duty of care, disregarding the fact that the vehicle progress signal is changed to a stop signal, was proceeding more than 21 kilometers at every hour, and the victim D (W, 76 years old) was not found to cross the crosswalk from the right side of the pedestrian signal to the left side of the pedestrian signal, and was shocked by the front part of the Defendant driving vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim D’s death by his occupational negligence due to the climatic injury at the scene.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. The actual survey report on traffic accidents;

1. A traffic accident appraisal report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on a written autopsy;

1. Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Selection of alternative imprisonment without prison labor;

1. The reason for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as "the most favorable circumstances for sentencing") results in the death of the victim due to the negligence of the defendant's signal and speed limitation violation, the fact that the victim's bereaved family members and the bereaved family members have agreed smoothly with the victim, the vehicle of the defendant is covered by the comprehensive automobile insurance, and the defendant has been sentenced to three times a fine