Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a Clearning car.

On January 9, 2013, the defendant driving the above vehicle at around 20:05, and driving the trigram 233-2 neighboring Doctrigram 233-2 at a speed of 40 km per hour from the IC room to the Myeon office at the west-nam Myeon Office. Since the place is where the yellow-ray central line is installed, the person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to thoroughly operate the trigram and to safely operate the trigram.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and caused the victim D (the age of 35) who was driving in a normal straight place in the opposite part of the traffic of the center line due to negligence, and caused the victim's side of the driver's seat of the vehicle in front of the driver's vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim by occupational negligence, which requires approximately three weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A traffic accident report and a report on the occurrence of a traffic accident;

1. A medical certificate (D);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on vehicle and on-site photographs after the accident;

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

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

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are the road at the time of the instant accident. As such, the instant accident cannot be deemed to constitute a case where a traffic accident was caused by breaking the central line without any inevitable reason, and thus, the instant accident does not constitute a centralized intrusion under Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. Therefore, the Defendant’s driving vehicle was covered by a comprehensive insurance policy.