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 is engaged in the duty of driving a small-type taxi B.

On May 24, 2017, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 01:19, and proceeded the three-lane road in front of the 697 Choyang apartment, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Cheongju, with the view to the shooting distance protection from the opening distance.

At the time, the road was at night and at a speed of 60 km per hour, and in such a case, the driver of the motor vehicle had a duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle by complying with the speed limit.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and went on a speed exceeding 40 km a speed of 108 km per hour while driving on a speed exceeding 40 km a speed of 108 km a speed, and the Defendant got the victim C (18 cc) who was crossinged from the left side of the direction of the Defendant's proceeding to the right side of the pedestrian signal to the right side of the crosswalk on the pedestrian signal, and went beyond the road.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the death of the victimized person due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

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

1. A photograph on the scene of an accident, a photographic image of an accident, and a modified photograph;

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

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents According to the Selection of Punishment, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of imprisonment without prison labor;

1. Although there was a serious consequence of the death of the victim due to the influence of the defendant, such as the overfluence of the defendant on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the sentence is ordered by comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (a) there was no criminal history against the defendant; (b) it is difficult to deem the defendant to be due to the fact that the mistake is recognized and contradictory; (c) the fact that the victim’s bereaved family members have agreed with the victim; and (d)