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

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of a small-type taxi in C.

On November 25, 2017, the Defendant driven the above taxi on around 00:28, and led the Defendant to drive the 767-lane in Busan-gu, Busan-gu, which was located in Busan-do. The Defendant continued to drive the road of four-lanes in front of the department store at the hospital located in the intersection in writing, along one-lanes.

At night, the above road is a place where the passage of the vehicle is frequent, and the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to see the front door well and accurately manipulate the steering and steering devices so as to prevent the accident from occurring.

Nevertheless, the defendant's failure to perform his duty in the front city was found to late back the victim D (57) who crosses the road to the right side from the left side of the progress direction of the defendant due to the negligence of the defendant's failure to perform his duty in the front city, and the defendant was faced with the victim's damage caused by the defendant's driver in front of the left side of the taxi.

As a result, the Defendant caused the death of the victim due to the above occupational negligence, such as the ground of pulververization in the workplace.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A traffic accident report;

1. Investigation report (verification of black stay images);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning postmortem records;

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

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

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the provisional payment order, the Defendant and his defense counsel fulfilled their duty of care at the time of the instant accident, but did not prevent the instant accident.

The argument is asserted.

According to the above evidence, the accident location of this case was the 9-lane road, and the central division was established, so it was difficult for the injured party to expect that he will cross the accident without permission beyond the central division.