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

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving vehicles collecting food C.

On February 15, 2016, the Defendant driven the above food collection vehicle at a speed of 20km per hour from the side of the racing to the Steel Corporation at a speed of 20km per hour in accordance with three lanes from the intersection of the transmission line in the south-gu Inter-west-gu Inter-west-gu Inter-west-west-west-west-west-gu.

In such cases, a person engaged in driving service of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents by driving the motor vehicle safely by taking the front side and left side of the course.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and did not discover the E-Engine bicycle driven by the victim D, which was driven on the right side from the right side of the bed left side by negligence, and received the part of the front part of the above food collection vehicle as the front part of the above motor bicycle.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim to die due to such occupational negligence at G hospital located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul, on February 17, 2016, by pressure from brain during treatment, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. The actual investigation report on traffic accidents;

1. Notification of results of traffic accident investigation and analysis;

1. An accident scene photograph;

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

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents Aggravated Punishment, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

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 summary of the assertion is that the defendant complies with and proceeds from the signal, so there is no negligence in the occurrence of the accident.

2. According to the records of judgment, the defendant's vehicle stop on the long distance stop line at the time of the instant case and waited for an front-way signal, and starts with the straight-line signal with the vehicle straight-line signal.