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 motor vehicle with sod motor vehicle.

On August 21, 2017, the Defendant driven the above car at around 09:10, and led the Defendant to make a right-hand turn from the front side of Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, to the front side of the Dong apartment at the right-hand speed.

Since a crosswalk is installed on the front side, in such a case, there was a duty of care to confirm whether a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle has a right to drive the motor vehicle by reducing the speed and by properly examining the front side and the right and the right.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and caused the damaged person to go beyond the road by taking a half of the left-hand edge of the Victim F(69) who was a victim F, which was moving on the left-hand side from the right-hand side by the negligence of bypassing it without being negligent.

Ultimately, around August 22, 2017, around 14:37, the Defendant caused the victim’s death by occupational negligence, resulting in death by brain transfer, etc. while receiving medical treatment at an Gyeong University Hospital located in 23, Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. A survey report on actual conditions;

1. A death certificate;

1. Protocol of inspection;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing black boxes and video CDs;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents According to the Selection of Punishment, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of imprisonment without prison labor;

1. The main reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution is not to be less than the negligence of the defendant who neglected the duty of care prior to the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, and the result of the victim’s death is also more severe, the shock against the victim by stopping and proceeding in front of the crosswalks, which did not have any significant impact on criminal punishment exceeding the fine, vehicle comprehensive insurance has no history of criminal punishment, vehicle comprehensive insurance has been purchased, the victim’s bereaved family members have agreed with the sentencing guidelines