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

The defendant is a customer who gets in a C-si operated by the victim B(71).

The defendant, around 18:55 on February 16, 2019, at the front of the E elementary school located in Michuhol-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D, stopped a taxi after using a victim's taxi, but was under the influence of alcohol, but did not occur at the rear seat of the taxi.

The Defendant opened a back door of the taxi and left the taxi as it is for the Defendant, and caused the victim to go beyond the center of the victim due to the negligence of the victim.

As a result, the Defendant suffered from the above negligence that caused the victim to suffer pressure in the first place in need of approximately 10 weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. Partial statement of the witness F in the court;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Results of reproduction and viewing of black boxes and video CDs;

1. A photo of the scene of occurrence and a list of 112 reported cases;

1. A certificate of admission and discharge, a medical certificate, and a medical certificate;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel as to each internal investigation report (on-site parking, etc.), each investigation report (a certificate of admission and discharge, a medical check, a submission of a medical certificate of injury, a analysis of black stuffs in a taxi submitted by the victim, an analysis of black stuff images submitted by the victim, and an attachment of black stuffs)

1. At the time of the instant assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel, the Defendant did not have any contact with the victim, and the injury inflicted on the victim is likely to have been caused by the king, etc. irrelevant to the instant case.

2. Determination

A. Although the degree of the formation of a conviction in a criminal trial should not be reasonable doubt, it does not require that all possible suspicions that are unreasonable should be excluded. The rejection of a conviction by causing a suspicion without reasonable grounds, which is recognized as probative value, goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, is not allowed. This is also determined by Supreme Court Decision 94Do135 delivered on September 13, 1994.