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

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

Criminal facts

On May 26, 2015, the Defendant driven CCA 110 Obama around 06:40 on May 26, 2015, and proceeded in the direction of a three-way distance from the right side to the right side of the gas station located D at oba-si.

Since there is a center line of yellow solid lines, in such a case, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to thoroughly operate the front line and to safely operate the car line.

The injured Party F(37 tax, South) with the center line invaded and going in the opposite opposite lane, with such neglect, is driving.

GCA110 Oral part of the front part was completely received by Defendant Oral part.

Defendant 2 caused injury to the victim, such as the strike of a baby who is obliged to give approximately four weeks of medical treatment due to such occupational negligence, and the flag of franchis, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness H and F;

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

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the instant accident was significantly different from the instant case due to the reason for sentencing. However, in full view of each of the above evidence (such as each statutory statement and the point where water is destroyed) as seen earlier, it is difficult to find out the circumstances that the occurrence of traffic accidents is relatively clearly revealed due to the Defendant’s central crime, and that the victim or witness made a particularly false statement due to the victim or witness, the Defendant appears to have an aggressive tendency while making a witness make a false statement. In full view of the above, the Defendant did not have any reason to reduce the fine for a summary order, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.