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

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a rocketing car.

Around 19:30 on January 30, 2020, the Defendant driven the above car, and led the road 2495, along the south-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Seocho-gu Seoul, to proceed to the Seocho IC on the side of the Seoul Arts Center.

At the time, it was difficult to take the front of the night, and there is a crosswalk with signal lights installed at the front, so in such a case, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to look at the front and right and the right and the right and the right of the person engaged in the motor vehicle and to proceed safely in accordance with the new code.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and did not discover the victim C (Nam and 43 years of age) who dried the crosswalk in accordance with the Mad Pedestrian Signals, which was driven by the negligence of violating the signal while the electric signal was red, and received the victim in front of the right side of the said car.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as mination of the left-hand elel executives in need of approximately eight weeks of treatment due to such occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to the Defendant’s written statement C’s legal statement, black and video CD diagnostic certificate

1. Article 3 (1), the proviso to Article 3 (2) and Article 3 (1) 1 and 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, and the selection of fines;

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

1. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that the defendant's negligence in violation of the signal and caused an injury requiring treatment for about eight weeks by shocking the victim who scamed on the crosswalk in violation of the signal, and that the case is not easy in light of the degree of negligence, damage, etc.

However, the fact that the defendant is against the defendant's wrong recognition, and the risk of the victim is being covered by the comprehensive insurance, and the damage of the victim seems to be recovered most.