Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a wing truck B.

On January 31, 2018, at around 08:45, the Defendant is driving at a speed from the right angle of the front side of the Incheon Gyeyang-gu Incheon apartment house at the end of the four lanes to the e-mail. In such a case, a large number of vehicles at the time are in the signal atmosphere, and thus, there was a duty of care to safely drive a motor vehicle and prevent accidents by checking the right and the right of the front side of the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and negligently passed the road from the right side to the left side, and received the victim D (58 tax) who walked on the left side of the road as the front part of the truck in front of the Defendant’s driving.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury, such as double trauman cages and cage cages, which require approximately six weeks of medical treatment from the victim due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written statement on the occurrence of traffic accidents;

1. A report on the occurrence of a traffic accident and a statement of actual investigation;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Vehicles shocks, booms, and booms-fluor photographs;

1. Stick drive drive (the defendant and his/her defense counsel did not have a duty of care to anticipate that a person will cross the motor vehicle without permission in light of traffic conditions at the time, and even if the defendant was negligent in breach of such duty of care;

Even if the defendant finds the victim and finds it difficult to avoid traffic accidents in light of the time and distance from the time to the conflict, the defendant asserts that there is no substantial relation between the defendant's negligence and the traffic accident in this case.

However, according to the above evidence, the snow was found at the time of the instant traffic accident, and the road was destroyed, so the Defendant was also under the condition of the ice, so Article 19(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, Article 19(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (Speed of automobiles, etc.) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 19(1), notwithstanding paragraph (1), when the Defendant was malicious due to rain