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 drives a DPoter Ⅱ which is owned by C.

On December 21, 2012, at around 06:53, the Defendant driven the above vehicle in front of the road 66-58, Dong-dong, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and proceeded along one lane of the three-lane road in the direction of the Gu market in the direction of the Gu road. On December 21, 2012, the Defendant was negligent in driving the front of the road in front of the road in front of the Gu road in the direction of the Gu road even though the front signal was yellow signal, and caused the victim E (here, 79 years of age) crossinging the crosswalk to the right side of the road in front of the right side of the above vehicle.

On January 21, 2013, the Defendant caused the above victim to death while receiving treatment by cutting down two alleys at the F Hospital in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, due to eropologal brain, acute typosis, acute typosis, and severe cerebral pressure increase.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of G and H;

1. A report on traffic accidents and a report on actual condition;

1. Photographss, such as a CCTV screen photograph, accident site, accident vehicle, etc.;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a death certificate;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in the Selection of Punishment, Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The instant accident on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for providing community service and attending a lecture is difficult to view that the Defendant’s negligence was insufficient to view that the Defendant’s accident occurred by proceeding the said vehicle without stopping even though the vehicle signal was changed to yellow light before the Defendant passes the crosswalk, which is the place of the accident. The fact that the result of the instant accident was significant due to the death of the victim is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the victim is also a red light that prohibits pedestrian signals from cutting the crosswalk.