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 car in the C SP area.

On November 18, 2015, the Defendant driven the above car at around 06:50, and driven the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the E in J in Seo-jin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seojin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, along the two-lanes of the distance from the distance from the inside of the sand market.

At the time, the road was cut off due to the getting off of the road, and the location was a crosswalk in which signal lights are installed, so there was a duty of care to check whether there is a person who gets on the driving of a motor vehicle to reduce the speed and to check the road well, and to prevent the accident in advance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and did not see the front bank properly, and did not discover the victim F who was crossing the crosswalk at the right side from the left side of the running direction of the Defendant, and did not find out the victim F who was crossing the crosswalk at the right side, and received the victim as the front part of the said vehicle, and caused the victim to die by throst, etc. at the former North Korean University Hospital located in the 20th century, Jinjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Reports on traffic accidents, on-site photographs, and reports on the occurrence of traffic accidents;

1. Report on internal accidents (related to telephone conversations of wooden persons);

1. A criminal investigation report (related to the frequency of signals at accident places);

1. Information on the operation of the intersection (in a case where the signal line is marked);

1. A corpse death certificate;

1. Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of neighboring CCTVs, images of the actual signal cycle, and neighboring CCTV images is excessive in view of the following: (a) the Defendant, at the time of the accident, at the time of the accident, was in a situation more than the usual level; and (b) the Defendant, at the time of the accident, at the time of the vehicle’s accident, is passing ahead of the vehicle’s price on the one lane adjacent to the other, should be predicted even when the victim would cross without permission.