Therefore, the Defendant did not violate the signal.

Judgment

The Defendant, on February 27, 2018, driven a BKank-gu Kank-si, Seoul and proceeded at a speed of about 66.2 km from the mid-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul to the long-speed intersection, along the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lane.

In this case, the driver has a duty of care to properly protect the signal and safely drive the signal in order to prevent the accident in advance.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and received the front part of the victim's DNA driving E in the direction of the vehicle by the defendant's vehicle in front of the victim's DNA driving, who had been a U-turn due to a direct negligence in contravention of the signal.

As a result, the Defendant suffered, by negligence in the above business, injury to the victim F (the age of 12) who was on board the above victim’s vehicle, such as a scambling, etc. of a scamball wall that requires approximately three weeks of medical treatment, such as impairment of the face that requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by taking account of the evidence presented in its judgment.

In a criminal trial for a judgment of conviction in a trial for a trial of a trial, the conviction shall be based on evidence of probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true, beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence establishing such a degree of conviction, the defendant is suspected of guilt even if there is no evidence establishing such a conviction

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

However, it is necessary that such a conviction should be formed by direct evidence.