If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving C Pops.

At around 18:20 on August 14, 2012, the Defendant driven the above cargo vehicles, and was driving the three-lane roads in front of the modern department stores in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Seoul, along three-lanes in front of the modern department stores, at the direction of the modern department store in the direction of the string building, while driving along three-lanes from the direction of the tension.

At this point, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance, such as checking whether a person engaged in driving service temporarily stops the way to drive the vehicle, and driving the vehicle at a speed.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and proceeded with the above crosswalk by negligence, which caused the victim D (the age of 89) to go beyond the above cargo lane.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as the amount of the left-hand satisfaction and the pelle that require approximately six weeks of medical treatment due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A traffic accident report;

1. Vehicles and on-site photographs;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

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

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant had inflicted an injury on the Defendant’s vehicle by shocking the victim with the Defendant’s vehicle on the crosswalk, but the Defendant claimed to the effect that there was no negligence since he fulfilled his duty

In other words, the victim was born out of the cargo of the defendant's operation and left side with the rear wheels, but there is suspicion of a disguised accident of insurance money.