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

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of B-ro taxi.

On October 18, 2012, the Defendant driven the above vehicle on the 22:48th day of October, 2012, and led the front side of the fluoral road in Daegu Suwon-gu, to the direction of the fluoral distance from the direction of the court.

Since there is a limited speed of 70 km per hour, a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents by complying with the restricted speed and driving safely.

Nevertheless, due to negligence of the speed exceeding 36 km per hour, the victim C(34 years of age) who has crossed the right-hand side from the left-hand side without permission was shocked.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim to suffer injury, such as brain injury and pelvisa, which require approximately 12 weeks of medical treatment by occupational negligence as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A report on the occurrence of a traffic accident and a report on actual condition investigation;

1. Investigation report (as regards speed and specific at the time of the accident of the feet vehicle);

1. An investigation report (as to attachment of a medical certificate):

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

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

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

1. The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground of sentencing of the instant accident requires a strict punishment for the Defendant on the grounds that the degree of damage to the victim caused by the instant accident is relatively heavy. However, the Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment since 1980, and that the Defendant only agreed with the victim, that the vehicle is insured by the mutual aid association, that the degree of negligence of the victim crossing the road without permission is not small, and that the occurrence of the instant accident seems not to have contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident, taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, living environment, etc.

order for any reason above.