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

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of 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 of a vehicle with D horses.

On May 13, 2017, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 11:30, and led 87 Hanyang apartment as Aamamam in Nam-gu, Incheon, to move back from 103 East to 102 East at the speed of about 10km from 103 East to 102 East.

The apartment complex is a place in which people walk frequently, and at the time, the defendant's right of care to live well in the front of the vehicle and to prevent the accident by accurately manipulating the brake system in advance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and got the victim to go beyond the floor by taking the back part of the Defendant’s vehicle due to negligence.

Ultimately, around May 14, 2017, at around 05:20 on May 14, 2017, the Defendant caused the victim to die by local color screening at the Jung-gu Incheon National University’s 27 Incheon National University and its affiliated hospital.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A survey report on actual conditions;

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

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents Aggravated Punishment, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following extenuating circumstances in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc. of the said Act is that the Defendant, on the apartment parking lot, neglected his duty of follow-up care while leaving a vehicle in the future, and neglecting his duty of follow-up care, leading to the death of the victim by shocking the damaged person who was walking on the direction of the proceeding. However, the crime of this case is not good, but the vehicle is covered by a comprehensive insurance, the victim’s bereaved family members do not want the punishment of the Defendant, and the victim is driving the vehicle near the parking lot.