On June 7, 2015, the Defendant operated B's franchise which was not covered by mandatory insurance on June 19, 2015, and led to driving of a motor vehicle at around 126, Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, to drive the 50km road at the speed of 50km from the IC bank in Incheon.

A person engaged in driving motor vehicles has a duty of care to drive motor vehicles by checking the front side and the left side.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and found the victim C (at the age of 55) who crosses the road on the right side of the front side of the road without permission and operated it late, and received the victim in front of the right part of the Defendant’s driving vehicle.

Defendant 1 caused injury to the victim by negligence in the course of performing the above duties, such as blood transfusion under the center of the sexual scarcity, where there is no organ open in the head requiring approximately 12 weeks medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the defendant in the first trial record;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A traffic accident occurrence report;

1. A survey report on actual conditions;

1. Inquiry into mandatory insurance;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs;

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 (the occupation and negligence on duty, selection of imprisonment without prison labor), Article 46(2)2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act, and the main sentence of Article 8 (the occupation of driving of an uninsurance vehicle, the choice of imprisonment with prison labor);

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38(1)2 and 38(2), and 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes (to the extent that the period of each of the above crimes is aggregated) was closed, and the defendant deposited some of the damage amount after the closure of pleadings. The victim was causing an accident or an expansion of damage to cross-road without permission, and the vehicle involved in the accident did not have been covered from the beginning; rather, the defendant did not have any circumstance to consider the defendant, such as, when the defendant did not renew the insurance after the expiration of the insurance period, it was against the crime of this case. However, the defendant was a motor vehicle.