If the above fine is not paid, 50,000 won shall be converted into one day.

Around 16:30 on September 16, 2012, the Defendant driven a light rail and proceeded to the right edge of the passenger crossing located in the Dongbcheon-si with a shooting range from the right edge to the right edge of the road through two-lanes. At the time, a pedestrian signal at the above shooting range was green, etc., and thus, the driver of the vehicle bypassing the road was obliged to take into account the front side and the right side of the road, and temporarily stop the accident and prevent the accident in advance. However, without verifying the signal, the Defendant was negligent in performing the duty of care to prevent the accident in advance, and caused the victim C (the son, 55 years old) (the son), who passed the crosswalk, was driving the bicycle with the front wheels of the right edge of the road along which the victim C (the son, 55 years old), who passed the crosswalk pursuant to the victim C (the son), who proceeded to the front side of the road and sustained the victim's injury, such as a scarbing wall that requires treatment for five weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and C;

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. A medical certificate;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing accident sites and vehicle photographs;

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

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the traffic accident of this case occurred not by the defendant's negligence but by neglect of the victim's duty of front-time care. The traffic accident of this case is an accident occurred not by the defendant's fault but by neglect of the victim's duty of front-time care.

2. The evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court.