Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,200,00.

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

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the driver of the B rocketing vehicle.

On January 21, 2014, at around 17:20, the Defendant proceeded at an insular speed from the sloping surface to the sloping surface on the road near the tunnel of a bridge located in the sloping-si, Chuncheon-si.

Since there is a yellow solid line, in such a case, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to thoroughly see the front-time and safely drive the car line.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to do so and proceeds as it is.

On the other hand, the back part of the victim C(the age of 67) driver's Don-Wood-Wood-Wood-Wood-Wood-Wood-Wood-C(the age of 67) was received as the front part of the siren.

Ultimately, the defendant's occupational negligence caused the injury of the victim C such as satise base for about two weeks of medical treatment, and the victim E (n, 67), F (n, 33 years of age) and the victim G (n, 3 years of age) suffered the injury of satise base for medical treatment for about two weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement prepared in C;

1. Reports on the occurrence of traffic accidents, actual condition investigation reports, field photographs, and investigation reports;

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

1. Article 3 (1) of the relevant Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. It is so decided as per Disposition for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, including the following reasons: (a) the Defendant is the primary offender; (b) the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle is covered by comprehensive automobile insurance; and (c) the road at the time appears to have been connected.