beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.
Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving service B.
around 19:18 on July 14, 2019, the Defendant driven the above Oralba, and continued to run the Dhump road on the front side of Gangnam-gu Seoul and the front side of Gangnam-gu.
Since there is a one-way traffic on which the prohibition of entry is marked, the driver has a duty of care to live well on the right and the right and the right of the driver, and not enter the one-way traffic route according to the traffic safety facility sign or signal direction.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and took the front part of the Franchisa car driven by the victim E (the aged 63) who was driving in the opposite direction to the course of the collision by negligence driving a one-way passage, and received the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.
Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as salt, tension, etc., in need of approximately two weeks of treatment due to occupational negligence.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;
1. E statements;
1. The actual condition survey report;
1. A medical certificate;
1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the traffic accident in this case caused the victim not to be injured, and even if the victim suffered a family injury, it was caused by the king.
In full view of the following circumstances, the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, namely, the degree of damage of the damaged vehicle due to the collision between Defendant Ortoba and the damaged vehicle and the damaged vehicle, such as shouldering the front part of the damaged vehicle due to the collision, the victim was found at the hospital on the following day after the accident occurred, received treatment, and received treatment more than twice thereafter, and the Defendant did not seem to have any special scopic prior to the accident in this case.