The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a ecoo vehicle B.

On September 26, 2014, the Defendant driven the said car at a speed of about 109.2 km at a speed of 109.2 km at the front of the D household located in C at the time of the original week, with the front of the D household located in C from the front-dong bank.

At the time, there was a new wall time, and there was a duty of care to prevent accidents by driving safely, such as ensuring that a person engaged in driving service is at a point where the restricted speed is 70 km a speed, and thus, whether he/she is a person engaged in driving service, by complying with the restricted speed and checking well the right and the right and the right, etc.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and found the victim E (V, 68 years old) who illegally crossed from the left side of the vehicle driving direction to the right side at the time exceeding 39.2 km per hour, while the defendant delayed, avoided, and immediately stopped, but the victim was on the road.

The Defendant suffered approximately six weeks of pressure pressure from the victim due to occupational negligence as above, and the Defendant suffered approximately seven weeks of pressure from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. E statements;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. Comprehensive traffic accident analysis report;

1. On-site photographs, intensity, and photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

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

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

1. The instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s excessive reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the resulting injury suffered by the victim is not less complicated.

However, with respect to the occurrence of the accident in this case, it seems that the victim without permission is responsible for the occurrence of the accident in this case, and the defendant was able to reduce the damage by making efforts to avoid the collision at the last.