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

On October 18, 2014, at around 05:32, the Defendant driven two lanes in front of D-do in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, in the direction of Kimpo-pur in the direction of the inspection section, and proceeded at the speed of 83 km per hour.

Since there is a crosswalk where a signal, etc. is installed, there was a duty of care to confirm whether a person engaged in driving service has a way to reduce speed and to see well the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the duty of care to drive in accordance with the new subparagraph.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while driving the vehicle stop signal as it is, led to the death of the victim F (the age of 32) who dried the crosswalk from the right side of the proceeding to the left side of the road by shocking the victim F (the age of 32) to the front offender of the above Aburged vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. A written result of autopsy;

1. Notice of the results of the analysis of traffic accidents and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the written request for appraisal;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in the Selection of Punishment, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and selection of

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( considered as follows):

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the order to attend a lecture [Scope of Recommendation] The basic area (including persons who have been specially mitigated) of the type 2 of the ordinary traffic accident (including persons who have been specially mitigated) [including efforts to recover damage] / In a case where illegality in the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Special School Act is serious (the decision of sentence] [the decision of sentence] of the defendant, in violation of the signal, has shocked the victim who dried the crosswalk of the pedestrian signals. The negligence is serious, the victim's death and the victim's history of the traffic accident occurred three times, the victim's history of the traffic accident is not obvious, while the result of the victim's death competes with the corresponding corresponding part of the shock by the vehicle of the mother-do that escaped.