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

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On July 20, 2017, at around 00:35, the Defendant was driving a rocketing taxi in the direction of the 2nd Dong community service center in Dobong-gu Seoul, Seoul.

At the time, the place was at night a children protection zone with a speed of 30 km per hour, and the defendant was driving a bicycle driven by the victim F (54 cm) on the right side of the taxi on the front side of the taxi by the defendant, so there was a duty of care to prevent accidents by driving the motor vehicle at a limited speed, operating the steering and brake system accurately, operating the victim's bicycle driving on the front side at a sufficient intervals, while driving the motor vehicle at a close intervals.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded with a limited speed exceeding 16.4 km per hour, and found the victim's bicycles entering the above roads late to avoid it by negligence without operating the brakes properly, but failed to avoid it, and did not avoid it, the Defendant got the victim's bicycles in front of the above taxi and got the victim's bicycles over the ground.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the death of a victim who was receiving medical treatment at the Gyeong National University Hospital around 10:10 on July 26, 2017 due to the above occupational negligence due to two traumas, etc.

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. Vehicle booms and video CDs;

1. A medical certificate;

1. A death certificate;

1. A written adjudication on brain death;

1. A traffic accident analysis report;

1. Determination of the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel regarding the investigation report (the method of operating a speed limit to children protection zones) and the defendant and his/her defense counsel are merely the whole negligence of the victim and there was no negligence

The argument is asserted.

Article 12 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the Mayor, etc. deems it necessary to protect children from the danger of traffic accidents.