When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a motor vehicle by obtaining a franchise.

On August 24, 2014, the Defendant driven the above car on around 10:05, and proceeded with approximately 20-30 km (in the driver's statement) at the speed of Si/Gun from the west Village of the west-si, the west-si, the west-si, the west-si, the west-si, the west-si, the west-si, the west-do, the west-do, the west-si, the west-si, the west-si, the

In other words, the road has a high tideland length and a sloping and slope. As the defendant has a duty of care to pass to the right from the center, the defendant has a duty of care to pass to the right from the center. The defendant has a duty of care to go to the right. The defendant has a duty of care to go to the right of the center of the road.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and contacted the part of the left side of the e-mail 100 Ortoba, which is driven by the victim D (year 72) driven by the victim D (year 72) who passed opposite to the south village from the west of the Sejong Village, which is a part adjacent to the vehicle of the Madern Defendant, with the back door, etc.

The Defendant suffered injury to the victim D, such as 2, 3, and 5 times of 2, 3, and 5 times of cage, etc., which require approximately 2 weeks of medical treatment to the victim D due to the above occupational negligence, and the victim F (n, 72 years of age) who took part in the damaged dynas, such as cages and tensions, which require approximately 2 weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Comprehensive traffic accident analysis report, actual condition survey report, and evidence and photographs of the scene of the traffic accident;

1. Each general medical certificate (D, F) and defense counsel denied the infringement of the central line. However, if each of the evidence stated in the judgment, in particular, the “traffic accident comprehensive analysis report” and the statement of D, the fact of the violation of the central line can be sufficiently recognized as stated in the judgment of the Defendant, and the circumstances and defense counsel asserted by the Defendant and defense counsel.