A defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

When the defendant does not pay a fine, 100,000 won shall be converted into one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in B taxi driving.

On December 25, 2016, the Defendant driven the above taxi at around 16:30 on December 25, 2016, proceeding two lanes prior to D in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul with a shooting range from the basin to the shooting range in the Geum Park Park.

However, since there is a crosswalk where a signal, etc. is installed, and the person engaged in driving service was a pedestrian signal at the time, it was the duty of care to temporarily stop the accident and prevent the accident if there is a pedestrian driving on the crosswalk, by checking whether there is a person to walk the crosswalk by reducing the speed of the signal and by properly examining the right and the right of the pedestrian.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and caused the victim to go beyond the ground by facing the part of the bridge of the victim E (the 79 years old) on the right side from the direction of the defendant's proceeding to the left side in accordance with the pedestrian signals.

Defendant 1 suffered injury to the part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the body, which requires approximately nine weeks of treatment due to such occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing black boxes and video CDs;

1. Article 3 (1) and proviso to (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

1. As a result of verifying a black image of the reasons for sentencing of Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract the Nowon Station, prior to the Defendant’s entry into the intersection in order to make a right-hand, the victim’s crosswalk signal in front of the victim was already a green signal for pedestrians, but the victim was placed on India, and the Defendant proceeded with the victim’s right-hand side of the vehicle, and the fact that the victim was faced with the back of the vehicle’s right-hand side.

If the victim fulfilled his/her duty of care as an average pedestrian, it is doubtful whether the accident occurred.