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

The defendant is a person who drives a bicycle as his/her duties.

On April 14, 2019, at around 15:35, the Defendant driven the above bicycle, and led to the left turn from the D market to the E market.

A bicycle rider has a duty of care to safely drive the bicycle, such as keeping the front door and the left and right well, etc.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and found that the victim F(57 years of age) is walking up due to the cargo lane in the stop due to the negligence of driving the vehicle by negligence, and did not reach the boom and did not go back to the boom, but he was driven by the bicycle driving by the defendant on both sides of the victim.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as salt, tension, etc. in the part where the detailed details of an unidentified that requires treatment for about two weeks, by negligence in the course of business as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. A statement of occurrence of a traffic accident prepared by the F;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing accident site photographs;

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

2. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for confinement in a workhouse (when a sentence of suspension of execution of punishment is invalidated or revoked, the time a fine is not paid).

3. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter the following sentencing grounds) shows the attitude of denying the instant crime.

The victim did not agree with the victim.

These are disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the injured party's wife is relatively minor, and the amount of damage is not significant.

The defendant has an old age of 83 years, there is no record of punishment heavier than a fine, and the age of the defendant.