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

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a KS7 car.

On March 4, 2020, the Defendant driven the said car at a speed of 34 to 36 km/h from the intersection to the intersection by driving the said car. On March 4, 2020, only the Gu opened the Damat in front of the Dmat in Chuncheon City at the speed of 34 to 36 km.

At all times, the driver of the vehicle in the intersection where no signal is installed has a duty of care to drive slowly or temporarily stop.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected the above duty of care and received the G winger and penter portion of the victim F (year 64) who was directly engaged in iceball in E oil stations, and the left winger and penter portion of the cargo vehicle, and the right winger part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

Ultimately, at around 15:52 of the same day, the Defendant caused the death of the victim due to cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral Elimination in the I Hospital located in Chuncheon-si H due to such occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Transmission of the survey report on actual condition, response to EDR analysis results, and results of the analysis of traffic accidents;

1. A death diagnosis report and a written record of autopsy;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning screen pictures of field pictures;

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. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s argument that the Defendant’s driving vehicle entered the intersection on criminal facts (hereinafter “instant intersection”) and passed the intersection. Moreover, the said lane was a road with a width larger than that of the victim’s driving vehicle. As such, the Defendant’s priority in passing the said intersection was the priority for the Defendant.

Therefore, the accident of this case is only caused by the unilateral negligence of the victim who has been under the influence of the vehicle without yielding the course to the defendant's driver's vehicle, and has neglected the duty of ex officio care, and is also caused by the defendant.