1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 5,000,000 won;

2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50 days.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a B car.

On April 23, 2018, the Defendant driven the above car at around 08:40 on April 23, 2018, and, at the time of Suwon-si, 200-gil-ro 239, the Defendant continued to drive the scar in the direction of the network in the direction of the school C.

At the time, since rain was milched, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to operate the steering and brake system in a safe manner by accurately manipulating the surface by reducing the speed and thoroughly checking the state of the surface in such a case.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and got off the part of the victim D (the age of 31) driving E-learning car, which was faced with the central line, due to the negligence unfolding as it was, received as the part of the Defendant’s driving ahead of the said car.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as the 12 weeks of treatment, due to such occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement (the defendant lost the ability to enjoy the vehicle due to the phenomenon that one party has water on the road, so the defendant's failure to enjoy the vehicle's steering power is not an accident caused by the invasion of the central line, since it constitutes a case where the defendant intrudes the central line without choice due to external circumstances that the defendant could not control.

The argument is asserted.

However, the speed of the road of this case is 60 km/h in the speed of 60 km, and the road of this case was milched at the time, so the defendant should have been operated at a speed of 20 km below the speed of 48 km/h above the speed of the restriction, but according to the actual yellow survey, it is recognized that the defendant operated the road of this case at a speed of 51 to 60 km/h above the speed of the restriction.

In addition, according to the accident video, even if there is a water pool on the surface, there is no particular obstacle to the view, and the defendant is sufficient to have a water pool in the front.