On December 26, 2015, the Defendant tried to turn to the left at two-lanes of the sunlight village 24 in the direction of Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu. 19:25 on December 26, 2015.

At that time the signal to the left is cross-sectioned, and the right turn end;

Since the state was changed by red color, there was a duty of care to stop in front of the stop line in accordance with good faith.

Nevertheless, the defendant, who violated the signal and went beyond the stop line, caused the victim D(51) E, which was proceeding on a one-lane, to a more than the left-hand fence of the defendant's vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as the body felbling, which requires approximately eight weeks of treatment due to such occupational negligence.

Judgment

The defendant and defense counsel asserted that the defendant did not violate the signal at the time of the instant case.

However, there is a fact-finding and a traffic accident-finding report prepared by a police officer who received a report after the accident of this case, as evidence of the fact that the defendant was red signal at the time of the accident, and the defendant was involved in the accident. While each of the above evidence document stated that the defendant violated the signal, it seems that the document was prepared by the ex post facto decision based on the statements made by the defendant or the injured person, not by the police officer.

In this regard, the Defendant denied the fact of the violation of the signal in this court, and the victim D also reported to the left-hand turn to the left in the court, not the red signal, and faced with the Defendant’s vehicle.

Since the above fact-finding report, etc. alone violates the Defendant’s signal.

There is no other evidence to acknowledge this point.

Therefore, the instant traffic accident.