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

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a car in a SP area.

On September 15, 2013, the Defendant driven the said car on September 15, 2013, and turned it to right bypass from the three-distance front of the Grand-ro 214, Daegu Jung-gu, Daegu-gu, to the knife-ro from the knife-ro to the knife-ro from the knife-ro.

Since a crosswalk without signal lights is installed, there was a duty of care to check whether a person engaged in driving service has a way to reduce speed and to see well the right and the right of the road, and to drive safely.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and neglected it and caused the victim to go beyond the road by taking a mountain fry, which was cited by the victim D (the age of 83) who crosses the crosswalk from the right side of the crosswalk to the right side of the passenger car of the Defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as 8 and 11 chest pressure pressure, which requires approximately eight weeks of treatment due to such occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A report on occurrence, a traffic accident report (1) (2) and a traffic accident report (2) (2).

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

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 3 (1), the 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

1. Articles 70 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 causes an accident in violation of the duty to protect pedestrians at the crosswalk, and thereby the victim was injured. However, the defendant's vehicle is covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance policy, and the defendant's vehicle has no criminal history, etc. shall be determined as the same as the order, considering the fact that the defendant violated the duty to protect pedestrians at the crosswalk.