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

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person engaging in driving C.

On May 4, 2013, the defendant driving the above vehicle at around 14:32, and let the road in front of 948, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, turn to the left at an aesthetic speed from the dong-si to the Southern East-dong Authority.

In this case, a driver of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by reducing speed and accurately operating the front door, the left and the right of the motor vehicle, and operating the steering system.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not discover the victim D (the age of 26) who cross the crosswalk due to negligence while neglecting it, and did not get the victim back to the floor as the front part of the above bus, and proceeded with about 26 meters in the front right side with the victim.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the death of the victim due to the above occupational negligence on May 4, 2013, due to the injury to the diversity of external wounds around 14:32.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning autopsys;

1. Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Punishment concerning Criminal Facts, Article 268 of the Criminal Act and Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

1. The occurrence of the instant traffic accident, which led to the shocking of pedestrians who are passing through a warning due to the Defendant’s violation of the duty of front-time care due to the reason for sentencing, under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the following circumstances favorable to the Defendant among the reasons for sentencing), is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, even though the red signal was not displayed due to the breakdown of the pedestrian signal at the time, there was negligence by violating the signal, violating the signal, failing to verify whether the victim is able to walk, the victim's bereaved family, the victim's consent is being subscribed to the bus mutual aid, and the harming vehicle is two times in 191 and 195.