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

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a B multilateral car.

On May 2, 2019, the Defendant driven the said car on May 13:10, 2019, and proceeded in front of the D cafeteria located in the Busan metropolitan Daegu metropolitan transportation C from the e hospital to the 1st public security center. On the other hand, the Defendant was crossing the sidewalk to enter the F son’s parking lot located below the above cafeteria.

Since there is a place where a sidewalk for pedestrian traffic has been installed, there was a duty of care to temporarily stop the vehicle's driver and to ensure the safety of pedestrians who live well on the front side and the right and the right and the right of the vehicle's driver, and to prevent accidents by driving the sidewalk.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and neglected to walk the sidewalk due to the negligence of driving the sidewalk, and received the front line of the Defendant’s driver’s car.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as a pelvisa, which requires approximately seven weeks of treatment due to such occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. A traffic accident report (1) (2);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (receiving a medical certificate);

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) 9 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents Aggravated Punishment, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the degree of injury of the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the provisional payment order is not easy, but not agreed with the victim. Meanwhile, the defendant reflects his fault, the defendant's vehicle is covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, the defendant's vehicle is covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, and there is no other criminal punishment except for punishment imposed once on the violation of the Customs Act in 1982, as well as the process and process of the occurrence of the accident in this case