If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The defendant is a person who drives a taxi for other business purposes belonging to C.

On October 19, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 22:10, and around 22:10, at the time of the Seo-gu Daejeon-gu, the bypassed the bypassing route from the parallel of Seo-gu Daejeon to the parallel of Seo-gu Daejeon-west at a speed of about 10km in speed.

At the time, the pedestrian signal, etc. was installed at a crosswalk without a pedestrian signal, so in such a case, the driver has a duty of care to confirm whether there is a person driving the road and to safely drive the road by reducing the speed and checking well the right and the left, while neglecting this, the Defendant, while neglecting it and neglecting it, led the victim D (ma, 33 years old) who has dried the crosswalk from the right and right side of the above vehicle to the right side of the road.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as the climatic salt, the right side part, etc., which requires treatment for about two weeks due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Written statements of D;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

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

1. The instant accident is an accident caused by the Defendant’s vehicle that entered the middle location of the crosswalk at the time of the wind, after completing the kind of friendship and personnel in the state of the crosswalk on the side of the crosswalk, and facing them. Thus, the Defendant violated the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk pursuant to Article 27(1) of the Road Traffic Act.