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

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of C New-Wood Motor Vehicle.

On April 9, 2017, the Defendant driven the above vehicle around 13:20, and driven the front road of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D along the two-lanes from the intersection to the intersection of the parallel.

It is a place where entry is prohibited by safety signs, such as a safety zone, and in such a case, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to avoid passing through the safety zone.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and neglected to pass through the safety zone due to the negligence in violation of the safety mark marking, and thereby, got a part of the victim E-(56) driving in the way from the two lanes to the one lane. The Defendant received the front part of the left side of the driver's vehicle of the victim E-(56) driving in front of the upper right side of the motor vehicle.

The Defendant, by negligence in the above occupational negligence, suffered injury to the victim G (V, 50 years old) who was accompanied by the victim E and the franchise vehicle, such as fluoral salt, etc. requiring approximately two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement (as at the date of the second public trial, in the case);

1. A written statement of the occurrence of each traffic accident in E and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report on the actual condition of traffic accidents, reports on the occurrence of traffic accidents, site photographs of accidents, and medical certificates;

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

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is the primary offender who had no record of punishment prior to the instant case, the defendant agreed smoothly with the injured party during the instant trial, and other various sentencing conditions, including the defendant’s age, sex, environment, etc., shall be determined as the same as the order of sentencing.