If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

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

On January 25, 2012, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 19:40 on January 25, 2012, and driven the same earth in front of the same road located in New Pyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, with a speed of about 50 kilometers per hour from the snow-free to the snow-free area.

The Defendant, by occupational negligence, injured the F, the passengers of Defendant vehicle, for approximately two weeks of light finites, etc., in need of medical treatment, and inflicted injury on G, such as dinites in need of medical treatment for about two weeks, and suffered injury on the victim D, such as the thalle of the third trend requiring approximately six weeks of medical treatment, and the thalle of the third trend requiring approximately six weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by a witness H in the second trial records;

1. Statement made by witnesses D in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Statement made by a witness I in the fourth protocol of the trial;

1. Inquiries and replies to inquiries;

1. Sending a report on a traffic accident, on-site photograph, and a comprehensive analysis of a traffic accident;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each written diagnosis;

1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso of Article 3 (2) and Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents concerning criminal facts, Article 268 of the Criminal

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of the workhouse

1. The alleged defendant did not intrude the central line, and the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the injured party who invaded the central line.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant and the victim asserted that they had invaded central lines from the time of the instant accident, and that “traffic accident comprehensive analysis report” was prepared by the Road Traffic Authority branch of Gyeonggi-do in order to clarify the details of the accident and the point of the accident, and H of the Accident Investigation Research Institute who prepared the comprehensive traffic accident analysis report.