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

The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a rocketing taxi.

On February 9, 2017, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 22:08, and driven the front crosswalk D in Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon, by using one-lane between the 4nd parallel and the 4nd parallel parallel to the 4nd parallel.

Since there is a crosswalk in which a signal, etc. is installed, in such cases, there was a duty of care to safely drive the person engaged in driving service in accordance with the signals by reducing the speed and by properly examining the right and the right of the road.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and went beyond the road by receiving the victim F (26 tax) who walked on the crosswalk from the right side of the proceeding direction to the left side of the crosswalk to the left side in accordance with the pedestrian signals of the crosswalk, due to the negligence of passing through the stop line in violation of the signal, even though it was an front-side red signal.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as brain salvin, which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment, due to such occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Criminal place, report on a traffic accident (1), and report on a traffic accident (2);

1. On-site photographs of the accident and the driver's license register;

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

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

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, alleged that the defendant did not violate the signal, but the circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the defendant, namely, the victim, who was placed in the crosswalk at the latest, seems to have been in the remaining condition of 18 seconds, even though he was placed in the crosswalk, and the defendant also appeared to have been in the remaining condition.