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

The defendant is a general manager of B branch, and the victim C (V, 53 years old) is a pedestrian.

The Defendant operated a coffee shop, and installed a blocking machine at the entrance to prevent external vehicles from parking in the parking lot.

When the defendant has installed a blocking machine at the entrance of the parking lot, he has a duty of care to ensure that the pedestrian's walking is not impeded when the passenger's vehicle using B enters the parking lot from the parking lot to the roadway, and the pedestrian's walking is not obstructed.

Nevertheless, around 14:50 on May 20, 2019, when a non-customerd customer who used the place in the B large-name parking lot in Daegu-gu D drives drives the vehicle to enter the roadway, he/she temporarily stopped in India at the time of entering the roadway, and at this time, the victim got through the place and walk toward the front side of the vehicle, and the victim was obstructed by walking the vehicle, and the blocking period was down to the front side of the vehicle, and the victim was faced with his/her head.

As a result, the victim suffered two weeks of treatment date damage to the second spam, and spambling, which require two weeks of treatment date.

Summary of Evidence

1. C’s legal statement;

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (a copy of the CCTV photograph taken in the case, accompanied by a CD and a photograph to the major pages), investigation report (two copies of photographs);

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

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

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The Defendant fulfilled his duty of care to ensure pedestrian safety in relation to the management of the entrance entrance entrance of a parking lot, and the instant accident occurred due to the victim’s care, and thus the Defendant is not guilty of the instant accident.

B. The victim’s wife is minor due to the instant accident.