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

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

Punishment of the crime

On August 12, 2013, at around 07:45, the Defendant, while not purchasing mandatory insurance, driven C Obaba, and proceeded with two-lanes of the spring water flow distance of Daejeon Seosung-gu, Daejeon, using the first line of line at the seat of a lock box, from the seat of a lock box.

Since a signal, etc. has been installed and the traffic of vehicles is frequent, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to safely proceed in accordance with the new code, but the defendant neglected to do so, and the victim D (the age 51) driving E-ray part of the E-ray of the victim D (the age 51) driving, which was proceeding in accordance with the new code, was placed on the right right side of the defendant, and suffered injury, such as light salt, etc. for about two weeks in need of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Diagnosis certificates, mandatory insurance inquiries (date: August 12, 2013), signal cycle signs, and investigation reports;

1. Application of CCTV and video image Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents Aggravated Punishment, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 46 (2) 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the main sentence of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the selection of fines for each crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The fact that a second offense was committed despite the previous conviction of a fine for the same kind of reason for sentencing in Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the defendant was not at fault as it appears that the defendant had entered the intersection immediately after yellow fluoring (the point of the accident seems to have been insufficient time to go out of the intersection in the direction of the defendant's proceeding, the direction of the accident is four lanes from each other, the horizontal direction is a 12-lane intersection from each other, and the defendant is going out of the intersection.).