If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a rocketing taxi.

On July 31, 2019, the Defendant driven the above taxi on July 23:56, 2019, and proceeded at a speed of 53.54 km depending on the length of the middle-gu office building at the front of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Since there is a 30km section at a speed limit, a driver engaged in driving service has a duty of care to ensure safe operation by checking the safety of the course and accurately manipulating the steering and brakes while complying with the speed limit.

Nevertheless, while driving at a speed exceeding 30 km a speed of 53.54 km per hour, the Defendant neglected the duty of the front-time driver and caused the victim D (W, 56 years old) to cross the crosswalk from the right side of the running direction to the left side of the road due to the negligence of driving the vehicle.

After all, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the 14 weeks of treatment, due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement on the occurrence of D traffic accidents;

1. A survey report on the actual condition, a vehicle photograph, a photograph of each black stuffe photograph and a tachograph for operating records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a medical certificate 1 and an investigation report (No. 10, 13 of the evidence list);

1. Article 3 (1), the proviso to Article 3 (2) and Article 3 (3) and 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents concerning Criminal Facts, the selection of fines, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and the selection

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

1. The instant accident on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act with regard to the provisional payment order is excessively operated.

The case is that the pedestrian who has dried the crosswalk was received as it is and the nature of the crime is inferior, the degree of injury to the victim is serious, and the defendant is under the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor due to occupational embezzlement.