If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in the business of driving a motor device B bicycle.

On February 13:00 on February 7, 2017, the Defendant driven a bicycle with a motor device device at around 13:00, and led to the driving of the road traffic safety center in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government in the direction of the middle distance from the yellow academic distance.

Since there is an intersection where a signal, etc. is installed, there was a duty of care to reduce the speed to a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle, to live well on the front side and the right and the right, and to prevent an accident in advance by driving the motor vehicle safely in accordance with the traffic signals.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and received the parts of the motor motor device bicycle front side of the motor device driving by the victim C (61 ) who passed the intersection in accordance with the new subparagraph from the right side of the last course when he was negligent by the negligence of the red signal as it is, in violation of the signal, in the right side of the motor device driving by the defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered from the injury of the victim E (at the age of 63) on the part of the victim and the victim E (at the age of 63) who was on board a motor device operated by the victim due to the above occupational negligence, including a variety of cage cages that require approximately four weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement of the occurrence of each traffic accident in C and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the actual survey report and each medical certificate;

1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) 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 Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. The summary order is determined even in light of the sentencing conditions indicated in the trial of this case, such as the fact that the defendant was subject to criminal punishment for the reason of sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, the fact that there was an agreement with the victim C, and the victims’ damage are not easy.