Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person engaged in driving freight vehicles B and B.

On October 22, 2013, at around 11:15, the Defendant had two-lanes in front of the crosswalk in the Sadong apartment distance in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, to turn to the left according to one-lane from the front of the new elementary school to the right-hand turn.

In this case, the defendant engaged in driving of the vehicle has a duty of care to protect pedestrians by complying with the traffic signal.

However, due to negligence of neglecting such duty of care, the Defendant received the victim C (V, 83 years old) who was a victim who was a pedestrian crossing from the left side of the running direction of the Defendant with the right side, from the front side of the above cargo vehicle operated by the Defendant, and caused the victim to be injured by an injury, such as an external wound, which requires approximately eight weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on traffic accidents and a report on actual condition;

1. Photographss and on-site photographs of the piracy vehicle;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to medical certificates and investigation reports (additional medical certificates attached);

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 3 (1), the proviso to Article 3 (2) and Article 3 (6) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents According to the Selection of Punishment, and Article 268

1. The accident in this case’s reason for sentencing under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act is that the defendant’s failure to properly observe the duty of pedestrian care in driving the cargo vehicle and driving the crosswalk at a non-protective seat, and thus, the defendant’s negligence on the occurrence of the accident itself is difficult to be deemed to be less severe. The fact that the degree of damage suffered by the victim of the accident in this case is relatively heavy is that the defendant is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the cargo vehicle operated by the defendant is covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance.