Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a Class B truck.

At around 11:00 on June 11, 2016, the Defendant driven the above truck and got to turn to the left at a speed of about 10 kilometers from the direction of the Gu Triju to the central high school of Ulsan-gu.

Since a crosswalk is installed on the front side, in such a case, there was a duty of care to check whether a person engaged in driving service is a person who renders a way to reduce the speed and to see well the right and the right and the right and the right of the road, and to safely drive the road.

Nevertheless, the left part of the victim E (the 56-year old) which was dried on the right side of the crosswalk in the direction of the defendant's course due to negligence on the left part of the defendant's failure to do so, was taken to go beyond the ground on the right side of the above truck.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim by occupational negligence as above.

6. At around 19:58, Ulsan National University Hospital, located in Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-gu, 8777, led to the death of a brain (liver) due to two internal blood transfusions at the Ulsan National University Hospital.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The actual condition of traffic accidents;

1. On-site photographs, CCTV images, blackbox photographs;

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, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, the selection of imprisonment without prison labor for a crime;

1. The case is not easy in that the reason for sentencing of Article 62(1)(a) of the Criminal Act is absolutely guaranteed by the safety of pedestrians, and there is an accident involving the victim's death due to the careless violation of the duty of pedestrian protection. However, there is a change that the defendant's turn to the left to the above crosswalk has not been seen as a victim because there is no other vehicle that the defendant left to the above crosswalk, and the victim's bereaved family and the equivalent amount are two.