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 engaged in driving a F K5 vehicle.

On April 7, 2017, the Defendant driven the said car at a speed of 109 km/h in the speed of 109 km depending on two lanes (including bus exclusive lanes) of the two lanes in front of H hotel in Mapo-gu Seoul and the two lanes in front of H hotel to the air-line intersection from the open-line intersection to the air-line intersection.

Since its location is 60km at every hour, a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents by complying with the vehicle line and speed limit, operating the steering gear and brakes accurately.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and caused the limited speed to exceed 49 km every hour, and the victim I (31) who crossed the road to the right side from the left side of the defendant's driving direction without permission, took the victim I (31) into the front part of the driver's car, leading the victim to the floor.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim to die due to such occupational negligence at the emergency room of the “mardo Matern Hospital” around April 8, 2017, which caused the death of the victim due to the cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral tys

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement by the witness J;

1. One-time protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the accused;

1. A traffic accident report and a report on the occurrence of a traffic accident;

1. Investigation report (CCTV investigation);

1. Photographss and field photographs of the skin vehicle;

1. A traffic accident analysis report;

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendant and the defense counsel had operated with the limited speed at the time of the accident.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, that is, the defendant's car did not contain a black image and did not present a witness who correctly during the accident, and the police officer in charge did not have a nearby building CCTV.