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

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On October 29, 2013, the Defendant, who is engaged in driving of B-be cargo vehicles, was driving the above cargo vehicles on October 18:13, 2013, and continued the road in front of the Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Sacheon-do, Sacheon-do, Sacheon-do, Sacheon-do.

At the time of night, in such cases, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely operate the operation of the system and the steering gear of the motor vehicle by accurately operating the system.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and got the victim C (year 74) who was crossing the road in the right direction from the left-hand side of the defendant's proceeding by negligence, to the front side of the above cargo vehicle, and went beyond the road.

Ultimately, at around October 29, 2013, the Defendant caused the victim’s death due to a low-weight shock from the E hospital located in Simsan-si D on October 29, 2013 due to such occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. A traffic accident report;

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. Although there was a serious result of the victim’s death due to the Defendant’s occupational negligence on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., the circumstances indicated in the grounds of sentencing), the following facts are considered as factors of sentencing favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant agreed with the bereaved family members; (b) the Defendant’s vehicle was covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance; and (c) the Defendant appears to be contrary to the Defendant’s confession of the instant crime; and (d) the records and arguments of this case, such as the Defendant’