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

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a driver of a gallon-type vehicle.

On May 28, 2014, the Defendant: (a) driven the above-mentioned vehicle as his duties, and was parked in front of the livestock shed 2 store located in Namyang-dong, Namyang-dong; and (b) was parked in front of the above store, but was moving back to the front of the white apartment room.

In such cases, there was a duty of care to check the safety of the career of the latter and to check the safety of the career of the latter.

Nevertheless, the part of the back-of-age vehicle for the victim D(W, 37 years old) who stops on the left-hand side of the back-hand side of the driver's vehicle due to the negligence of driving the vehicle due to negligence, and received the back-of-hand side of the driver's vehicle from the back-hand side of the driver's vehicle.

As a result, the Defendant suffered from the injury to the victim D and the F (the age of 34) who was on board the above victim D due to the above occupational negligence, for approximately two weeks of treatment, such as base salt, tension, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D and F;

1. Each written diagnosis (D, F);

1. Application of related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the defendant asserts that there was no sufficient fact that the victim D driven by the defendant driver's vehicle.

On the other hand, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, including ① the testimony of the victim D or F from the investigation stage to the court, and the testimony of the victim D or F, are consistent and credibility, while the defendant alleged that there is no fact that the investigation agency had taken it back, and acknowledged that he had taken it back after checking CCTV video data.