However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a C-learning car.

On August 27, 2015, the Defendant, at around 20:50 on August 27, 2015, proceeded with the three-lane road in front of the “E”, “E” at P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P.

Since correspondence is at night and at a crosswalk where signal lights are installed, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by reducing speed to those engaged in driving service and safely manipulating the steering direction and brake system.

Nevertheless, the Defendant failed to discover the victim F (66) who crosses the road on the right side from the left side by negligence while neglecting this, and received the victim as the front part of the Defendant’s driver’s car.

As a result, the Defendant caused the death of traumaous shocks due to the cryp fry at a university racing hospital located in Dong-si, 87, which was under the treatment of transmission after around 21:20 of the same day on the same day due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against the accused;

1. Statement made by the police in relation to G;

1. Report on the occurrence of a traffic accident, report on actual condition, 18 copies of the on-site inspection report, 22 copies of the corpse inspection report, 22 copies of each investigation report (signal cycle, CCTV images at H filling stations), six photographs, notification of the results of the traffic accident investigation analysis, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the comprehensive traffic accident analysis report;

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 instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution, which was unable to perform his duty of care as a driver, such as the duty of a front-time driver, while driving a vehicle, and the victim died.

In addition, damage has not been recovered.