except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. On June 14, 2016, at around 09:55, the Defendant driven a E-wit truck under the influence of alcohol content of about 500 meters from the section of approximately 500 meters from the Defendant’s house located in the Jeon Chang-gun C to the farm near D’s farm.

2. The Defendant is occupationally engaged in driving cars Epoter freight.

The Defendant is driving a cargo vehicle as stated in the preceding paragraph, as stated above.

The cargo vehicle was parked in the nearby farm road in Jeon Chang-gun, Jeon Chang-gun, D.

At the same time, the gradient was about 10.8 degrees down, and the victim F et al. al. am on the lower side of the downhill road, and the defendant was aware that the above cargo vehicle had a problem with its engine, such as the fasting of the vehicle in the future, even if the above cargo vehicle had been operated to the maximum extent, since from the month of the occurrence of the accident, the defendant was aware that there was a problem with its engine, and thus, in such a case, the defendant has a duty of care to set the cargo vehicle to the maximum extent possible, and to prevent the vehicle from getting fast from the down on the downway by fixing the vehicle in the way of placing the cargo vehicle to the wheels.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to stop driving of the cargo vehicle, left the vehicle with the intermediate speed, left the vehicle as a neutrality, immediately left the vehicle, and did not confirm whether the cargo vehicle was properly fixed, and received the victim as the front part of the cargo vehicle, and then got the victim over the ground level. The Defendant got the victim over the ground level without checking whether or not the cargo vehicle was properly fixed.

Ultimately, the Defendant had the victim receive the follow-up treatment at around 11:12 on the same day due to the above occupational negligence.