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

except that 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 of B Poter cargo vehicles.

On October 16, 2019, the Defendant driven the above cargo vehicle from the third distance in front of the Michuhol-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C Complex on October 14:23, 2019, and went to the left at the left from the flood of the elementary school drawing distance to the flood of the water park.

A person engaged in driving service at a place where a signal apparatus and crosswalk are installed on the front side has a duty of care to safely drive a motor vehicle in accordance with the new code.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that the signal signal of the front signal apparatus is yellow, the Defendant, by negligence, shocked the left part of the left body part of the victim D(75 years old) crossinging the crosswalk to the port from the right side of the last direction when the left is turned left, with the front part of the vehicle of the Defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused cerebral cerebrovascular, etc. to the victim due to the above occupational negligence, resulting in the death of the victim who received medical treatment at the F Hospital located in Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Jung-gu, Incheon, on October 30, 2019.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on the occurrence of a traffic accident and a report on actual condition investigation;

1. On-sitectv image data, sealing park admission distance system;

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

1. Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Special Cases concerning the Selection of Punishment, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and Selection of imprisonment without prison labor;

1. According to the above evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant's defense attorney's defense of the defendant and defense counsel's assertion of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code (the circumstance of this case caused by shocking the victim who was crossing, the agreement with the victim's bereaved family, the defendant's reflectiveness, and the first crime, etc.) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548, Apr. 1, 201) asserted that the defendant did not violate the signal to the left