A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving service of B 125cc.

Around 18:00 on September 21, 2019, the Defendant driven the above Oralba, leading the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government front road to the Ehigh school from D side.

Since there is a crosswalk in which a signal, etc. is installed, in case the signal, etc. is a pedestrian signal, the person engaged in driving service has a duty of care not to drive the crosswalk.

Nevertheless, if the defendant neglected to do so, and the defendant was negligent in driving a crosswalk so as to prevent it, he was driven by the front part of the victim F (W, 69 years old) who was a victim F (W, f9 years old) who was putting an electric wheelchairs on the crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian signals in the direction opposite to the direction of the defendant's running.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as salt, tension, etc. in need of medical treatment for about two weeks due to such occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A traffic accident report;

1. Statement on the occurrence of a traffic accident;

1. A report on investigation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) and Article 3 (6) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents According to the relevant criminal facts and the selection of fines;

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

1. Although the degree of violation of the defendant's duty of care that caused an accident while driving a crosswalk on the crosswalk through the reason for sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not seem to be somewhat weak, the defendant appears to have committed a crime, the degree of injury suffered by the victim is not relatively heavy, and the treatment expenses are deemed to have been fully paid due to the comprehensive insurance subscribed to the Ortoba, and the victim does not want punishment against the defendant, and the defendant does not want to do so by agreement with the victim.