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

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 the duty of driving B taxi.

On July 25, 2019, at around 22:15, the Defendant moved ahead of the D cafeteria in Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon, into a one-lane distance off from the lue-distance off from the lue-distance off to the lue-distance off.

At night, in this case, a person engaged in driving duties of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to check whether a person crossing the road is a person and drive the motor vehicle, by checking well the front left.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and neglected to stand on the right side of the defendant's driving direction, and received the victim E (ma, 82 years old) who was a victim of the crosswalk from the defendant's driving line to the right side of the pedestrian signal, etc.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim’s death by occupational negligence on July 26, 2019, at G Hospital located in Daejeon Jung-gu, Daejeon, to death by blood transfusion, etc. at around 01:00.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each police statement made to I and H;

1. A traffic accident report (1) (2) (actual survey report);

1. A death certificate;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on photographs, black boxes and video CDs;

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 (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Judgment on the defendant and defense counsel's assertion under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant was not negligent in violating the duty of care in relation to the accident of this case, in light of the fact that the defendant could not see the victim due to the beam of the letter vehicle suitable for the time of the accident of this case, and that the victim was born on the road while crossing the car without permission.

2. Determination

A. Legal doctrine.