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

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of B-si.

On October 12, 2017, the Defendant driven the above vehicle around 09:43, and proceeded at a speed of about 40 km from the four-lanes in front of the first apartment of the Yanssstong-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, at the speed of about 40 km from the four-lanes in front of the first apartment of the Ystong-gu, Daejeon.

Since there is a pedestrian crossing in which a signal, etc. is installed, in such a case, the driver had a duty of care to reduce the speed, to live well on the right and the right of the driver, and to drive safely in accordance with the new code.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and did not stop red signals and proceeded in violation of the signal, and got the part adjacent to the right side of the bicycle driven by the victim C (Woo, age 21) who is driving on the crosswalk from the right side of the mash left side to the right side of the bicycle driven by the Defendant.

As a result, the Defendant caused the injury to the victim by the above occupational negligence, i.e., cutting down the upper half of the water table No. 2, which requires approximately four weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A medical certificate;

1. An inspection report on the actual condition and a lock-up vehicle cambling images;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (victim C telephone communications);

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act in the order of provisional payment appears to have been even proceeded with by the Defendant in view of the traffic situation at the time of sentencing. The fact that the Defendant’s vehicle operating the Defendant was shocking the victim while driving the crosswalk at a considerable speed, the degree of injury of the victim (unfavorable circumstances), the victim’s punishment is not wanting to be imposed, and the damage of the victim was recovered.