Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person engaged in K5 taxi driving services.

At around 20:00 on June 1, 2016, the Defendant continued to proceed by right from the side of the original elementary school to the direction of the divesian distance, the road in front of the divesian motor vehicle service, which is located in 142, Young-gu, Young-gu, Sinwon-si, Sinwon-si.

Since there is a crosswalk where a signal, etc. is installed, it was confirmed whether a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to safely drive according to the new subparagraph after checking whether he/she is a person to reduce the speed and to see well the right and the right of the road.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was negligent in neglecting this and driving along the crosswalk to the port from the right side of the crosswalk pursuant to pedestrian signals, and received the victim C (12 years old), victim D (40 years old), victim E (5 years old), victim F (n, 4 years old), and the victim F (n, 4 years old) in front of the taxi of the Defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered, by such occupational negligence, approximately two weeks of injury to the victim C, the victim C’s blusium and tension in a blusium in need of approximately two weeks of treatment, such as ambel, etc. which requires approximately two weeks of treatment to the victim D, and the victim F’s amblus, etc. in a right blusium in need of approximately two weeks of treatment to the victim E, and the victim E in a blusium in a right blusium in need of approximately two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of traffic accident-related person;

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

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

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

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. The reason for the sentencing of Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of the workhouse (the scope of recommendations) is a regular concurrent crime, and the sentencing criteria are not applied by selecting fines.

[Decision of Sentence] The defendant is against the defendant, the degree of injury of victims is not much serious, and the defendant has since 2002.