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

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a B-II cargo vehicle.

On February 5, 2018, the Defendant proceeded along the four-lane road in front of the Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the Suwon-si, the Sinwon-si, the Sinwon-si, according to the three-lanes of the monthly park at Sungpung-si.

Since there is a place where signal lights and crosswalks are installed, the person engaged in the business of driving a motor vehicle has a duty of care to build the crosswalks and safely drive the motor vehicle in accordance with the new code.

Nevertheless, the Defendant got the victim D(73 ) who was able to wear the crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian signals due to the negligence of putting the crosswalk in front of the cargo of the Defendant.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim in the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the river which requires approximately eight weeks medical treatment due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. The actual investigation report on traffic accidents and on-site photographs;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a medical certificate and a report on investigation (to hear statements in the victim state);

1. Relevant Article 3 (1), the proviso to Article 3 (2) 1 and 6, Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, and Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents According to the Selection of Sentence, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The crime of this case with the reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, was committed by the Defendant in violation of the signal and the Defendant suffered bodily injury upon the victim walking the crosswalk due to the mistake of violating the duty of pedestrian protection in the crosswalk. The degree of the Defendant’s breach of duty of care is not less exceptionally, and the degree of injury to the victim is also less exceptionally.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake, the defendant's vehicle is covered by the automobile comprehensive insurance, and the defendant paid the criminal agreement and agreed with the victim.