Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative director of the C Co., Ltd. located in Ilyang-si, Busan Metropolitan City, and the maintenance office and parking lot have been installed and managed in the C site.

On December 2, 2014, the Defendant, who installed and managed the said parking lot, had a duty of care to prevent the safety accidents of customers visiting the maintenance facility by keeping warning lights or the sign prohibiting entry, etc. in the vicinity of the construction site, because he was engaged in the maintenance of drainage and was leaving snow at the time, and thus, the Defendant had a duty of care to prevent the safety accidents of customers visiting the maintenance facility.

Nevertheless, on December 15, 2014, when the defendant was negligent in performing the above duty of care, and was driving the e-mail truck in the above C parking lot around 15:00 on December 15, 2014, the victim D (D, 39 years old) was not installed with signs, etc. informing that there was a ice or a ice, etc. within the parking lot site due to construction work, and the victim caused injury to the victim, such as thale, which requires treatment for about two weeks, by failing to install a sign, etc. within the parking lot site.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspects of F or G by the prosecution;

1. Each police statement made to D, H, and I;

1. Medical certificate (120 pages of investigation records);

1. On-site photographs and data from the scene of the accident [the defendant] acknowledged that he/she did not install a sign informing that he/she is a construction work in the vicinity of the accident site in this case, or a sign prohibiting entry, etc., but the defendant

The accident of this case is solely caused by the fault of the victim.

The following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, that is, the victim was merely a customer who requested the maintenance of the vehicle to visit the second site of this case to the maintenance office and was well aware of the surrounding circumstances of the maintenance office.

It can not be seen, and the victim's eye at the time of the accident in this case.