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 who is engaged in driving a freight truck.

On December 2, 2018, the Defendant driven the above cargo vehicle on December 22, 2012:05, and proceeded one lane in front of the Magyeong bus stops located in the Mansan-gun, Mansan-gun, at the speed of about 79.4 km from the Masan-si, the Mansan-si.

At night, the speed limit is 60 km per hour, so the person engaged in the driving of motor vehicles had a duty of care to prevent accidents by taking the front left, complying with the speed limit and driving.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and did not discover the victim C(54 years of age) who walked on the right side of the truck direction of the Defendant due to the negligence of proceeding more than 19.4 km of speed by speeding up to the speed of 19.4 km, and received the victim as the front part of the truck of the Defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the death of the victim at the above accident site around 22:25 of the same day by occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. E statements;

1. A survey report on actual condition, on-site, and photograph of an accident vehicle;

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

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

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, which resulted in the death of the victim by causing a traffic accident by negligence exceeding a limited speed without examining the defendant's bank properly. The degree of violation of the duty of care of the defendant, as well as the occurrence of a serious result of the death of the victim, is heavy.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake, and the defendant agreed with the bereaved family members of the victim.