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

The Defendant is a person engaged in rocketing taxi driving service.

On August 25, 2018, the Defendant, around 02:30, had 516 corporate bank cross-section 516 corporate bank cross-sectioned two lanes, along with the speed of 80 km, the Defendant continued to run from the erode of the erobbs in Seoul.

At the time, it is a new wall, its place is a section of 60 km at the highest speed, and the intersection is installed. In such a case, the person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to care in advance to prevent the accident by complying with the speed and living well.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected the above duty of care and went through as is, due to the negligence of the Defendant, got the victim C (39 years of age) who illegally crossed the crosswalk to the right direction from the left side of the running direction of the said car to the front side of the said car.

Ultimately, at around 14:16, Aug. 26, 2018, the Defendant caused the death of the victim due to serious cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebralop in D Hospital by such occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A death certificate;

1. Accident video CDs;

1. A traffic accident report;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes as a result of traffic accident DNA analysis;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents Optional to Punishment, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and selection of fines

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is against the defendant's recognition of liability due to the instant accident, the primary offender, the victim's bereaved family members and the smooth agreement with the victim, the defendant's subscription to the taxi mutual aid at night, and the defendant's driving in excess of the maximum speed in the downtown area prior to entering the intersection, and the defendant could have discovered a victim who was crossing without permission on the opposite side of the opposite lane prior to entering the intersection, and the defendant did not immediately reduce the speed.