However, 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 engaged in the operation of the EXE car.

At around 23:00 on December 24, 2013, the Defendant continued to run a road of the preceding one lane from the area of a hospital located in the same Eup to the area of a terminal in consideration of the hospital located in the same Eup, regardless of the morality village in the Mannam-do, the Maranam-do.

At night and around the crosswalk, in such cases, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents by ascertaining whether a person engaged in driving service is a person who gets on a road by reducing the speed and by properly examining the right and the right and the right of the road.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and neglected to set speed on the front side and neglected to proceed as is, and did not discover the victim D(54) who crosses the crosswalk from the left side of the Defendant’s running direction to the right side of the road, and received the said vehicle’s left fences and left glass part.

Ultimately, at around 23:45 of the same day, the Defendant caused the death of the victim from cerebral cerebral cerebral in the above E Hospital by occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

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

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

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the Suspension of Execution (see, e.g., Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da15488, Apr. 2, 2007).

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;