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

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a cuss car in C.

On December 03, 2017, the Defendant driven the above car at around 03:20 on December 03, 2017, and led the two-lane road in front of Seo-gu Incheon City, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, to go straight from the right side of the inspection team to the right side by the speed of about 92 to 102 km.

At that time, there was a road with a speed of 60 km per hour, so in such a case, there was a duty of care to observe the limit and to prevent accidents in advance by safely driving the vehicle with the driver's duty of care.

Nevertheless, as the Defendant was negligent in driving at a speed exceeding 32 to 42 km per hour and neglecting the front-round city, the Defendant received the victim E (20) who was crossing the road to the right side from the left side of the Defendant’s proceeding direction.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered approximately 12 weeks brain damage focusing on the fact that there is no injury in the two mains in need of open medical treatment by occupational negligence as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A report on the occurrence of a traffic accident, a report on the actual condition of a traffic accident, and a vehicle photograph under way;

1. Requesting an accident scene photograph or technical analysis;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Sending a black box, video CD, and a traffic accident analysis report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the investigation report (No. 5 and 6 once a year);

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

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

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant violated the duty of pre-accidents at the time of the accident, or the defendant's duty to observe the speed limit or violated the duty of the pre-accidents at the time of the accident, and that there is no substantial causal relationship between the accident

2. Facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, i.e., the Defendant.