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

On January 30, 2016, the Defendant operated a Vietnam-style cruise car on January 20:45, 2016, and proceeded about 85 km in the speed of Si, depending on the two-lanes from the two-lanes of Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do.

At the same time, since it is difficult to secure the view at night, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents by accurately manipulating the steering direction and brake system while living well on the right and the right and the right of the front, thereby checking the safety of the course.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this, while driving more than 70km a speed of 70km a speed limit, and found and immediately proceeded with the victim F, who crossed the above road from the right side of the Defendant's running direction to the left side, to the left side of the road, but did not reach this, the Defendant got the victim into the front part of the said vehicle.

The Defendant caused the death of the victim by occupational negligence due to high scarcity damage in the workplace.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. Each photograph;

1. A corpse of corpse;

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant's reply to the request for traffic accident analysis is not negligent in violating the speed at the time of the accident or at any other accident.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, as a result of the comprehensive analysis of the instant accident, the Defendant was driving 85 km at a speed exceeding 70 km from the time when the victim was shocked, and the Defendant was presumed to have been able to avoid the accident if he had properly operated the steering gear by recognizing the victim more early early, etc., the Defendant may be found to have been able to have been able to have been able to receive the accident.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions concerning facts constituting an offense;