On December 17:05, 2015, the Defendant driven CK3 car volume, and led the road of six lanes in front of the shooting distance to three-lanes in front of the offside of the north-west indoor sports center located in the north-west, as in the middle of 129, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si.

Since there is a place where a signal is installed, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to safely drive according to the new code.

Nevertheless, due to the negligent negligence in proceeding in violation of the signal, the victim D (29) driven by the victim D (29) who is to turn to the left on the yellow fluoral at the six-lanes of the road above the Mad Scul New, the front part of the vehicle driven by the EINI 110CC and the front part of the left part of the vehicle was followed by the fluoral of the vehicle.

The Defendant: (a) was negligent in the above occupational negligence; (b) sustained injury to the Victim F (V, 27 years of age) by catum catum, tensions, etc. requiring approximately two weeks of treatment; and (c) fatum catums, etc. requiring approximately six weeks of treatment to the Victim D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspects of D;

1. A written statement;

1. A survey report on actual conditions;

1. Each written diagnosis (List 14,16);

1. Application of photograph (List 3) Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Penalty of one million won to be suspended;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act (one hundred thousand won per day converted);

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Sentence (a confession, reflectivity, initial crime, and the occurrence of the accident in this case is deemed to have much more significantly influenced by the victim D's negligence, and the shock itself is deemed not to have existed. The victim F is the female female of the defendant, the automobile comprehensive insurance, and the victim D is not punishable)