Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six 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

On September 19, 2015, the Defendant, around November 11:37, 2015, changed the course of the national highway 36 of the Cheongyang-gun, Cheongyang-gun, Chungcheongnamyang-gun, from the direction of the Cheongyang Eup to the two-lanes in the direction of the Cheongyang-si.

There have been two lanes from the Cheongyang-Eup side to the national highways of No. 36, and there have been two lanes in the direction of the shot distance at the time.

In such cases, the driver of a vehicle shall not change course when it is likely to obstruct the normal traffic of other vehicles running in the direction of the change of course, and has the duty of care to inform the driver of the change of course in advance and to prevent the accident in advance by safely changing the lane and keeping the traffic situation well.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected such duty of care, without considering the traffic situation in the direction of change, changed the course from the two-lanes to the two-lanes, and led the victim D(65 tax) driving on the two-lanes depending on the two-lanes, which was driven by the Defendant, to the back part of the front part of the CA110 Oba in the front part of the CA110 which was driven by the Defendant, thereby falling beyond the floor by harming the victim from the Obaba.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim to die due to the above occupational negligence in light of 12:42 of the same day and the long-term damage to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to F and G;

1. A report on the occurrence of a traffic accident, a report on a traffic accident, an actual investigation report, and a comprehensive traffic accident analysis report;

1. A death certificate, on-site photograph, and shotos (the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that they do not have a relation with negligence or person. However, according to the above evidence, the accident in this case occurred immediately after the defendant entered the lane from the lane to the mother line.