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

However, 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 the duty of driving Category C cargo vehicles.

On April 9, 2016, the Defendant driven an above cargo vehicle around 10:45, and continued to proceed to the front-face of the same military located in the front-face of the law branch of the Gyeongcheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

At that time, there is a one-lane road in which the median line is the center line with yellow solid lines and where overtaking is prohibited, there was a duty of care to avoid overtaking on the road with the center line of yellow solid lines.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and caused the victim to go beyond the floor by shocking the part of the victim D (78 tax) which was driven prior to the same lane as the Defendant due to the negligence in the course of business operated beyond the center line of the yellow domin line, the left hand hand hand of the E. 100 O.M., which was driven by the Defendant, to go beyond the floor.

Ultimately, the defendant's occupational negligence caused the victim's death on the 10th 10th 00:29 of the same month due to the respiratory part and the heart part, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. Reports on the occurrence of traffic accidents, intensity, de facto investigation report, and photographs;

1. A death certificate;

1. The results of the traffic accident investigation and analysis [in the case of the instant accident, the Defendant and his defense counsel shall be deemed to have caused the victim to sloping the central line on the yellow deline on the road, and there is no negligence on the Defendant or at fault on the central line;

Even if there is no relationship between the negligence and the accident of this case.

The argument is asserted.

However, in full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court, the defendant was at the fault that the defendant did not accurately consider the movement of the Oral Sea, which had been driven by the victim while at the same time, in order to avoid the error of the victim's operation.