A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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 a small-scale taxi.

On August 8, 2013, the Defendant driven the above taxi on August 20, 2013, and 4 from Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Geumho-dong 309-1, the Defendant proceeded at approximately 5 km per hour from the area of the apartment of Puutera to the area of the slope of the apartment of Puutera with two lanes prior to 309-1.

At the same time, there is an intersection where traffic signal, etc. is installed on the front side, so in such a case, it is confirmed whether a person engaged in driving service is a person to reduce the speed and a road, and on the other hand, it is found that the victim D (10 years of age) who was walking a bicycle on the right side from the left side of the road due to occupational negligence proceeding in red stop signals without neglecting the duty of care to prevent accidents by driving safely in accordance with the new subparagraph, while neglecting the duty of care to prevent accidents, and the victim D (10 years of age) who was driving a bicycle on the right side of the above taxi.

The defendant suffered approximately two weeks of medical treatment to the victim through occupational negligence as above. The defendant suffered a loss of satisfaction with the right in need of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A report on actual situation;

1. Photographss of the accident site and caps of the accident video images;

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

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

1. Determination as to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of the workhouse

1. The assertion is not a violation of signal because the defendant made a bypass, and the bicycle of the victim was parked in the situation where the defendant's vehicle stops, and the victim's bicycle shocked the defendant's vehicle in violation of signal.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the vehicle signal, etc. is installed on the front side of the instant crosswalk, and both sides of the crosswalk.