Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On May 17, 2017, the Defendant driven B K5 car around 09:35, and proceeded along the two-lanes between the two-lanes from the boundary line of the police box where the additional area of the Masan-distance 347, a mountain-ro 347, was added to the Masan-ro.

It is an intersection where signal lights and crosswalks are installed, and in such cases, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely cross the crosswalk according to the new code and to check whether there is a pedestrian who is engaged in driving the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and took part of the victim C (e.g., 52 years old) in front of the passenger car in which the victim C (e.g., the 52 years old) was placed on the left side of the direction of the Defendant according to the pedestrian signals when the Defendant was facing a stop signal in violation of the signal.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as a pelle, which requires approximately eight weeks of medical treatment due to occupational negligence as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. C’s statement;

1. Report on the occurrence of a traffic accident;

1. Field map of a traffic accident;

1. A traffic accident report;

1. On-site photographs;

1. CCTV image images photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each written diagnosis;

1. Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, the proviso to Article 3 (2) 1 and 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, placed the victim who dried the crosswalk at the time of committing the instant crime in violation of signal.

The result showed that the victim suffered 8 weeks diagnosis injury even though it was obvious negligence.

However, immediately before the pronouncement of this case, the defendant agreed with the victim, and the victim expressed his/her intent not to punish the defendant.