If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The Defendant is a person engaged in driving CK5 taxis.

On November 29, 2016, the Defendant driven the above taxi at a speed of about 100-110km from the west-si to the west-si on the west-si.

Since there is no signal, etc. at a point of 70 km every hour, a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle has a duty of care to observe the speed limit, accurately operate the steering gear and brakes, and prevent accidents in advance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so at a limited speed exceeding 30-40 km per hour, and returned to the left at the sporesponding seat of the victim E (the 36-year old driver) who left the left and left the left at the sporesponding seat, followed the right-hand part of the pentum part of the Defendant’s taxi.

Defendant 1 suffered from each injury, such as cerebral finites, etc., in which approximately three weeks of treatment is required for victim E by occupational negligence, to the victim G (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) who is a passenger of the victim, for about two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A traffic accident report and accident site photograph;

1. A traffic accident-related statement of E;

1. A medical certificate (G), a medical certificate (E);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (with respect to the speed of restrictions on accident scenes);

1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is the degree of violation of the defendant's duty of care, the degree of injury to victims, and the fact that the vehicle driven by the defendant subscribed to the taxi mutual aid, and thus compensation for damage was made to the victims.