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

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a car in a SP area B.

On June 19, 2019, the Defendant driven the said car on June 22:35, 2019, while driving the said car and driving the road near the 6rd line of the road, which is located in 969, along with the 1st line from the direction of the river basin, led to an unknown turn-on at a speed not to be known.

A person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to check well the right and the right and the right before making a U.S. internship and to check that the career is safe, and then the person has a duty of care to make an internship.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and got the front portion of the victim C(19 years old)'s driving, which was proceeding to the river basin on the opposite side of the MaternUYM300 two-wheel automobiles, as the front part of the Defendant's car's right side.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the death of the victim due to the above occupational negligence, while receiving treatment from the F Hospital located in Daegu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City E at around 23:10 on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Each investigation report (the sequence 5, 7, 8 of the evidence list);

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. A death certificate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as photographs of accident sites;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents Optional to Punishment, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and selection of fines

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires strict punishment against the Defendant in that there is a serious consequence that the victim’s death due to the Defendant’s occupational negligence, who carried out an internship without sufficiently examining the prior concern about the reason of sentencing and without confirming the safety of career.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime, the first offender, and the victim at the time of this case is limited.