beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of a leisure car.
On July 24, 2016, the Defendant driven the said car at a speed of 5 to 10km/h from the side of the office of the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu. On July 24, 2016, the Defendant driven the said car at a speed of 5 to 10km/h from the side of the office of the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu.
There is a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance because a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle is not able to turn to the left with the center line installed at a place where a yellow solid line is installed.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and got left to the left at the center of the yellow-ray, and caused the victim's message and the driver's message, which was proceeding in the turn to the left, to conflict with the above car completely.
Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as her but not limited to her, but not limited to her but not limited to her, who is in need of treatment for about five weeks due to such occupational negligence.
Summary of Evidence
1. Each legal statement of witness E and D;
1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspects of D;
1. A survey report on actual conditions;
1. Report on the occurrence of a traffic accident;
1. Each written diagnosis shall deny the causal relationship between one’s central crime and the occurrence of an accident.
However, according to the evidence of the judgment, there is a trace of the collision between the damaged driver and the Defendant’s vehicle, and E, upon the investigation of the case, said E, at the time of the investigation, the Defendant stated that “the Defendant had the voice of the collision in the following parts of the vehicle.”
was stated.
In addition, comprehensively taking account of the records and various circumstances revealed in the trial process of this case, the accident of this case is deemed to have occurred on the road where the defendant was deprived of the center line and left to the church, while the latter part of the vehicle did not leave the road, and eventually, it is determined to have been punished due to the defendant's central invasion.
The application of legislation;