Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is engaged in the duty of driving C Eth Motor Vehicles.

On April 28, 2013, the Defendant driven the said car at around 17:20 on April 28, 2013, and continued to drive the said car at about 60km per hour on the side of both common farms, which are located in 270-3 of the Mapo-dong 270-3 at the end of both weeks.

Since the location was a blind-distance intersection where signal lights are installed, there was a duty of care to reduce the speed to those engaged in driving of the motor vehicle and to safely drive the motor vehicle in accordance with its signals.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and neglected to turn to the left from the right side of the road in the direction of the defendant's running, which the victim D (Nam, 42 years old) driven by the defendant due to the negligence continuing to run even though the vehicle stop signal was in violation of the signal, received the part of the left side of the vehicle left side of the above vehicle of the defendant.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as fluoral salt, which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment due to occupational negligence as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F and D;

1. Partial statement of the defendant in the prosecutor's office and police interrogation protocol of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F and D;

1. A traffic accident report;

1. On-site and vehicle damaged photographs;

1. Application of the Medical Certificate (D) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 3 (1) of the relevant Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant’s assertion denies the charges to the effect that the Defendant reported the right-hand signal at the time of entering the intersection where the accident occurred and did not violate the signal and rather made a left-hand turn against the victim D’s signal.

2. Determination

A. The Court has duly adopted and investigated the case.