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

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in the operation of the city bus in the case of fishing between B and B.

On October 4, 2018, the Defendant driven the above bus at around 15:19, and driven the front road D in front of the Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do at a speed of about 79.9km/h in the parallel direction from the parallel direction.

It is a road with a restricted speed of not more than 60km/h. In such a case, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by safely operating the steering company by complying with the restricted speed, properly seeing the right and the right, and the right and the right, and the right and the right, and the steering system.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and caused the left-hand turn on the left-hand side of the front side of the city bus, which was driven by the victim E (Nam, 78 years old) beyond the center line, due to the negligence in contravention of the restricted speed.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim's death by occupational negligence in the above 16:16 on the same day at H hospitals located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City G in the same day due to external shock.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each protocol of suspect examination of the accused by the police;

1. Statement of the police officer to I;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. A death certificate and a photograph of a dead person;

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

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 3 (1) 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. Judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Even if the essential speed of the assertion was observed, there was no breach of duty of care since it was impossible to avoid traffic accidents and the death of the victim.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, namely, ① the Defendant was driving at a speed of about 97km.