Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of B-si.

On June 10, 2014, the Defendant driven the above taxi on June 10, 2014, while driving the road 214 ahead of the 214-lane to the shooting distance from the front side of the Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, along the two-lanes from the front side to the front side of the three-lane, and made the left turn to the right right at the right speed from the front side.

At all times, there are crosswalks where a vehicle and a pedestrian signal are installed, so there was a duty of care to confirm whether a person engaged in driving service has a road to reduce the speed and to see it well, and to ensure safety according to the traffic signal.

Nevertheless, when the defendant neglected this and neglected to turn to the left in violation of the signal, the defendant received the right side part of the victim C(A, 66 years old) who cross the crosswalk from the left side to the right side in accordance with the closed pedestrian signals, and received the front part of the vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered from the injury of the victim, such as duplicating and closing the duplicities, including three lupages that require approximately four weeks of medical treatment due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C Statement on the occurrence, actual condition, and supplement of traffic accidents;

1. Reports on traffic accidents;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

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

1. It is so decided as per Disposition for not less than Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant violated the signal and neglected the duty of front-time care, and caused the injury by shocking the victim who dried the crosswalk in accordance with the new code, and the defendant did not agree with the victim. However, the defendant is the same as the previous one.