If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a car in the C SP area.

On July 19, 2017, the Defendant driven the above car at around 19:05, and led to the progress of the Cheongju-gu Cheongju to the direction of the Cheongju-gu, Soung-gu.

Since a vehicle signal, etc. has been installed, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to view the front door and the left door, and to safely drive the steering system and brakes by accurately operating them in order to prevent accidents in advance.

Nevertheless, even though the signal has been changed to a stop signal, it was due to the negligence that continued to proceed at the same speed, and the above distance was kept to the left-hand turn to the right-hand turn on the 2nd side of the Cheongju-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-turned-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-

After all, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence, which caused approximately 10 weeks of medical treatment, to the closed vertebrate 2.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. E statements;

1. A report on the occurrence of a traffic accident, a report on actual condition investigation, and a report on investigation (verification of accident images);

1. On-site photographs and accident video CDs;

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

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

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

1. Determination on the assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The argument that the defendant changed 10 meters prior to the entry of the shooting distance as indicated in the judgment of the defendant, and the defendant who was running around 70 km each hour at the time, was virtually unable to stop the vehicle prior to the entry of the aforesaid shooting distance because the public flight distance reaches 19 meters (20 meters each time the same distance is included). Thus, the defendant is not liable for violating the signal.

2. Determination: