On March 27, 2014, the Defendant driven the above village bus around 19:40 on March 27, 2014, and proceeded along the three-lanes between the three-lane distance intersection in front of the department store at the right edge and the side of the main commercial zone at the right edge.

Since there is an intersection where signal lights are installed, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to drive safely according to good faith.

Nevertheless, the Defendant met the right side of the seat bus in front of the above village bus which was stopped by occupational negligence and left turn to the yellow signal, and continued to shock the back side side of the I bus of H driving, and sustained the victim J (Nam, 41) who is the passenger of the above seat bus, and suffered from the climatic salt clif, etc. requiring approximately 3 weeks of treatment, and the victim K (V, 24 years of age) with light clif, etc. requiring approximately 2 weeks of treatment. The Defendant suffered from the victim L (V, 61 years of age) who is the passenger of the above village bus in need of approximately 2 weeks of treatment, clifal clifal c, etc. requiring approximately 3 weeks of treatment, clifal clifal c, which require approximately 62 years of age to the victim M (V, 62 years of age) for about 17 years of age and 3 weeks of treatment, respectively.

2. The court below's decision is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant was to turn to the left on the yellow signal with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

However, it can be recognized that the defendant neglected his duty to make a left-hand turn, as stated in the facts charged by occupational negligence, suffered injury to the victims. Thus, in this case where the vehicle driven by the defendant is covered by the comprehensive automobile insurance, the prosecution of this case is instituted.