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

1. On December 15, 2015, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act: (a) was driven by a vehicle located in the HT15X-dong transport vehicle that D parked on the front of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Songpa-gu, and (b) was crossing the said road from the front of the HT15X-dong transport vehicle to the seat of the police hospital.

At this point, there is a center line of yellow solid lines, so in such a case, there was a duty of care to ensure that a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle should thoroughly drive the motor vehicle in the front direction and safely.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and received the back portion of the F Freight of the Victim E (hereinafter “victimd Vehicle”) (hereinafter “victimed Vehicle”) which left left to the left from a locking room due to the occupational negligence in the course of driving the road on the road as it was, from the front part of the transport vehicle of the Defendant driving.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the damaged vehicle due to the above occupational negligence so that the market value can be the unpaid repair cost.

2. The Defendant was driving a HT15X-dong Transport Vehicle while under the influence of alcohol with 0.162% alcohol concentration in blood without a driver’s license in the section of about 10 meters, on the date, at the place specified in paragraph 1, and at the location specified in paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant asserts that there was a fact that the defendant was placed on the front-time transport vehicle during the crosswalk at the time of the accident of this case, and that there was no fact that he driven the said front-time transport vehicle. The defendant asserted that there was a fact that he was placed on the front-time transport vehicle during the crosswalk at the time of the accident of this case, and that he did not drive the said front-time transport vehicle.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence of the ruling, that is, the defendant, immediately after the accident of this case, discovered a bridge from the front vehicle, and E, the driver of the victimized vehicle, is the driver of the victimized vehicle.