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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a vehicle of CBroman.

On February 10, 2016, the Defendant driven the above car at around 19:00 and driven the three-lane road in front of the E, which is located in D, in the direction of luminous, along the two-lanes in the direction of luminous direction, at the speed of 75.3km in the direction of luminous direction, and has to reduce the speed and drive safely by taking into account the front side and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the road should be driven safely. However, in violation of this, the Defendant was driving directly and immediately on the right side of the direction of the course, and immediately discovered the victim F of the road along the crosswalk at the right side of the above vehicle, but the head of the vehicle did not stop, but did not stop, and the victim's left part of the road.

The Defendant caused the victim's death at the site due to multiple occupational injuries, etc. due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A death certificate;

1. Responses to the analysis of traffic accidents by road transportation agencies;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs, black stuffs, and video CDs by cutting a black boom;

1. Relevant legal provisions on criminal facts, 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, the defendant and his defense counsel considered the restricted speed of the location at the time of the defendant's choice as 80 km a speed at the time, and even if the defendant driven at a speed of 60 km a speed, it was impossible to avoid the traffic accident in the instant case even if the defendant

Appellanting the facts charged in the instant case.

However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted by the court and examined by the court, the location of the instant traffic accident can be acknowledged as having no duty of care to drive a driver due to due care, such as when the driver could expect the crossing of the pedestrian. Nevertheless, the Defendant caused the instant traffic accident due to the negligence of driving the vehicle due to the negligence of the Defendant, and the victim’s death.