However, the execution of the above punishment 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 the operation of bus B.

On October 16, 2017, around 19:17, the Defendant proceeded along one lane in the direction of the distance of the household from Incheon Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu.

In such cases, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to accurately operate the steering system, brake system, etc. of the motor vehicle and to prevent accidents by driving the motor vehicle safely while driving the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not discover the victim D (70) who crosses the road on the right side from the left side due to the occupational negligence that he or she was negligent in doing so, and did not go beyond the floor. The Defendant got the victim into the top part of the bus above the left side.

Accordingly, the defendant caused the victim's death due to the above occupational negligence due to a long-term damage to the victim's occupation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A traffic accident situation report, on-site photographs, and a situation report;

1. A traffic accident summary map, on-site photograph, and a report on actual condition investigation;

1. Blue stuffing images and traffic accident analysis reports;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the protocol of autopsy and photograph of a deceased person;

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 (the occupation of occupational and dental doctors), and selection of imprisonment without prison labor;

1. Claims and determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant and his defense counsel did not neglect their duty of care on the right and the right and the right and the defendant did not have any possibility of predicting the victim's unauthorized crossing and avoiding the occurrence of accidents.

2. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the Prosecutor, i.e., the victim’s five-way roads from the safety zone in the form of a rectangular-type surrounded road (Defendant 2).