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

The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a two-wheeled vehicle B 99.7C.

On May 8, 2019, the Defendant driving a two-wheeled vehicle at a speed that would not be known about three lanes depending on the high-priced level of the two-wheeled vehicle in front of Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, with the road along three-lanes of the Hannam-do.

Since there is a crosswalk where a signal, etc. is installed, there was a duty of care to check whether a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle is a person who gets involved in driving a motor vehicle by reducing speed and by properly examining the right and the right of the motor vehicle, and to safely drive the motor vehicle in accordance with the new code.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded as it was, by negligence, disregarded that the vehicle progress signal is changed to a stop signal, and the front part of the bicycle driven by the victim D (V, 21 years old) who was boarding a bicycle or a crosswalk pursuant to the pedestrian signals, was shocked by the front part of the two-wheeled vehicle of the Defendant.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury, such as duplicating cages, including two cupages, which require approximately six weeks of medical treatment from the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. The actual survey report on traffic accidents;

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

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

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

1. Although the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, the negligence of the defendant and the degree of injury of the victim are not weak, the defendant committed a crime, the amount of liability insurance was paid to the victim, and the victim did not want the punishment by mutual consent with the victim, and other records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.