except that 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 driving a Grandland car.

On March 25, 2015, the Defendant driven the said car on March 19, 2015, and led to the intersection of the distance in front of the D Hospital in the regular Eup/Myeon C from the parking lot of the D Hospital to the telephone station.

At the time, there was a remote intersection where traffic signals, etc. are installed at night, so there was a duty of care for those engaged in driving duties to observe the signal and drive safely.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was negligent in proceeding with the above intersection while the traffic signal was yellow, thereby driving F of the victim E(58 years old) driving on the left-hand side of the Defendant’s car.

The front wheels of Spllers was received from the defendant as the front gate part before the right side of the passenger car.

Ultimately, at around 22:59 on the same day, the Defendant caused the death of the victim due to such occupational negligence at the Gancheon University Emergency Medical Center located in 895, Jeollabuk-do, Jeollabuk-do.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Criminal place and report on internal investigation (field status, etc.);

1. On-site photographs, black stuff photographs, and audio-visual photographs;

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

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

1. Although the suspended execution results result in the death of the victim during driving of the defendant under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the defendant's personality, behavior, family relationship, family environment, and motive and motive of the crime, including the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the confession of the crime of this case and the misunderstanding in depth, the vehicle of the defendant was covered by the automobile comprehensive insurance, the defendant's vehicle was covered by the victim's family members, and accordingly the victim's surviving family members do not want the punishment of the defendant.