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

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a CM5 car.

On April 22, 2017, the Defendant driven the above car at around 21:05, and proceeded at a speed of about 65 km/h/h, depending on the four-lanes from the boundary of the police box where the two-lanes of the E in front of the Gu-U.S. D are located at the front of the Gu-U.S.-si.

At the time, it is night time.

Since the upper points on both sides of the road are located and at any time a person is likely to collapse, there was a duty of care to safely drive a motor vehicle to prevent accidents in advance by safely driving the motor vehicle, such as ensuring that there is a person who gets on the road driving service, by reducing the speed and checking the road well.

Nevertheless, when the defendant neglected this and proceeded as it was, the victim F (55 years old) who dried the above road in front of the direction of the running of the defendant, was employed as the front part of the passenger car driving vehicle of the defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim’s death by occupational negligence in light of the foregoing 02:52 day after the following day from the old-gu hospital affiliated with the Young-gu University of 179 to the Hancheon-si University of 179 to the brain diversic shock.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Report on the occurrence of a traffic accident;

1. On-site photographs, survey report on actual conditions, and photographs;

1. A death diagnosis report or postmortem report;

1. Notification of results of traffic accident investigation and analysis, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to traffic accident analysis;

1. Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. In light of the fact that the defendant's reason for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution has caused the victim's death by negligence that the defendant neglected his/her duty of care in the front direction, the defendant's driver's license is not less and less than that of the crime, and the defendant has a record of being punished for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act.