Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for one year.

However, 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 an agricultural Track.

On November 13, 2013, the Defendant, while driving a straw with a straw box connected to it on November 13, 2013, was proceeding at a speed of 5-10km per hour while driving the straw in CD located in the straw.

At the time, victims E (year 71) had a duty of care to check whether there is a person around the people who are engaged in driving of the Tracter, and to accurately manipulate the steering and operating the steering system in a safe manner, as the victims E was talking about the defendant in the vicinity of the Tracter.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and proceeded with the victim who was in progress after the Track as it was, and it was shocked as the post-Track part.

Ultimately, at around 17:05 of the same day, the Defendant caused the death of the victim due to the above occupational negligence, such as the cage of cage cage at the Ginjin General Hospital.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The actual survey report on traffic accidents;

1. On-site photographs and photographs of the changeer;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a death certificate;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents According to the Selection of Punishment, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and selection of

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act lies in the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant left a biter and brought about death by shocking the victim; (b) the fact that there is no agreement with the victim’s bereaved family members; (c) the Defendant deposited KRW 25 million to the victim’s bereaved family members; (d) the victim’s damage was recovered due to the insurance to which the victim joined (the victim’s insurance company is still pending in a lawsuit by exercising the right to indemnity against the Defendant); and (e) the Defendant was sentenced once a fine of 1996, and is favorable to

. The above.