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

On October 20, 2014, the Defendant driven a lebb car around 23:12 on the 2014. 20. 20. 23:12, while driving the lebane car, the lebane city street from the ebbane to the lebane air.

Since there is an intersection where a signal, etc. is installed, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to confirm whether there is a vehicle that proceeds from the front side and the left side well and to drive safely in accordance with the new code, and the defendant, while neglecting this duty of care, received the front part of the DNA passenger car driven by the victim C (hereinafter referred to as 29 years old) according to the vehicle driving signal at the left side by negligence in violation of the signal, and received the front part of the vehicle driving by the victim C (hereinafter referred to as 29 years old) from the front part of the defendant vehicle for about three weeks, received the victim E (n, 55 years old) who was on board the defendant vehicle for about two days, and suffered a number of strings that require the victim E (n, 57 years old) who was on board the defendant vehicle for about two days to receive treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Each agreement of the E and F;

1. Application of the traffic accident reporting Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant's negligence on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the provisional payment order is serious, and the accident was not insignificant, but consideration was given to the following: the defendant's primary and depth reflects the defendant, the victim's bodily injury is minor, the victim E and F as the parent of the defendant's parent, and the victim C does not want to