beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five million won.
Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is a person who is engaged in the duty to operate a cater of DNA surface.
On December 14, 2016, at around 16:00, the Defendant parked the surface shield so that it can extend to the side on the new village entrance lane at the new new village located in the east-gu, west-gu, the new road of the Chungcheongnam-do.
In such cases, there was a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of an accident by taking safety measures, such as installation of a safety sign on the surface or turning on a light, a light, or a breadth.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and parked a vehicle across the lane of the road surface while driving on the road surface on the side of the road surface on around 18:10 on the same day, and did not discover that the vehicle of the victim E (64) driving on the side of the road surface is running on the road surface from around 18:10 on the same day, and did not discover that the vehicle of the victim E (64) driving on the side of the road surface on the side of the road surface that was parked on the front side of the front side of the above vehicle.
Ultimately, the Defendant caused the death of the victim due to the above occupational negligence, such as damage to the two parts around 19:09 on December 14, 2016.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. A traffic accident report, on-site inspection report, and on-site photographs;
1. A death certificate;
1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel on the report of internal investigation (verification of the transportation route, etc. of cargo E)
1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant was shocking the chiller of the surface parked by the Defendant while driving under the influence of alcohol, and that there was a secondary shock by the vehicle immediately after the shock, the Defendant was unlikely to have predicted the occurrence of the instant accident, and even if there was negligence, there was no relationship between the Defendant’s negligence and the instant accident.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the Defendant fulfilled its duty of care necessary to operate a construction machine scrap.