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

The defendant is a person engaged in driving a B-to-pur vehicle.

On July 26, 2015, the Defendant driven the above car at around 06:50 on July 26, 2015, and led the front road of the community hall located in the 3rd Yesan-Eup, Seosan-si, Seosan-si, to the Yellowsan market.

Since there is a place where the center line of yellow-ray is installed, the person engaged in the driving of motor vehicles has a duty of care to thoroughly operate the motor vehicle at all times and to safely operate the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and caused the face, etc. to go beyond the road while driving the vehicle driving the vehicle with the front wheels part of the walking wheeler, which the victim C (the age of 82) gets on the right side of the walking wheeler, which is 82 years old, by negligence beyond the center line.

Ultimately, at around 08:49 on July 26, 2015, the Defendant caused the victim's death by the occupational negligence, from the original university hospital located in 895, Gododo-ro, Mansan-ro, Mado-ro, 2015, the Defendant caused the death by the external shock.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A written statement of the occurrence of traffic accidents prepared by E;

1. A report on the occurrence of a traffic accident, a survey report on actual condition, and a photograph of the accident site;

1. Investigation report prepared by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a death certificate or postmortem examination report;

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

2. The reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act with respect to detention in the workhouse is that the Defendant, as indicated in its reasoning, shocked the victim who was on the lane but was in the middle line, resulting in the death of the victim, and thus, the illegality thereof is small.

However, the fact that the defendant is prognating a crime in depth, and immediately after the accident, the victim is being loaded in the hospital, etc.