If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a rocketing car.

On February 21, 2017, the Defendant driving the above vehicle around 12:35, and driving the vehicle at a speed of about 40 km at the speed of about 40 km from the west-gu apartment door of the 5th apartment house, which is located in the Han Jin-gu Han-gu Hanjin-gu, Han-gu, Seoul.

Since a crosswalk without signal apparatus is installed at the front of that place, in such a case, the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents by safely driving the vehicle, such as temporarily stopping the vehicle in front of the crosswalk, and checking whether there is a pedestrian for the front and the left and right of the crosswalk.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and found the victim C (at the age of 81) to the left-hand side from the right-hand side of the defendant's right-hand side when the defendant passed the crosswalk as it is due to the occupational negligence, which caused the victim to go beyond the road. This part of the victim's body in front of the right-hand side of the above vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as “T11 and T12’s frame and closure,” which requires approximately 12 weeks of treatment by occupational negligence as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A survey report on actual conditions;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a 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. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the Defendant filed a 119 report immediately after the accident and made efforts to provide relief to the victim and agreed with the victim. The Defendant was also covered by a comprehensive insurance policy with the victim, and the victim was in the process of building a crosswalk for the victim.