If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

When the driver of any motor vehicle drives the motor vehicle, he/she shall fasten the seat belt, and make the passenger seated beside him/her fasten the safety seat belt.

Nevertheless, around 15:34 on April 28, 2017, the Defendant driven CMW car without putting the seat belt on the front of the 608-62 amboo-dong, Gangdong-gu, Seoul.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs and control records before and after wearing a safety bell;

1. Article 156 of the relevant Act and Articles 156 subparagraph 6 and 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of fines for criminal facts;

1. Article 70 (1) and Article 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (including the defendant and his/her defense counsel who wear a safety bell);

The argument is asserted.

However, since C, a traffic control police officer, made a very specific and consistent statement about the first enforcement officer from the time to the present court, the defendant's speech and behavior at the time of detection, the response of the defendant after detection, etc., the credibility of the statement is sufficient. At the time, the defendant was suffering from white, and the color of the safety labelling was colored in the test color, so it is difficult to see that it was erroneous. Where the person who was exposed to the safety labelling sign is presumed to have been in the body of the ordinary police officer, and the person who was exposed to wear the safety labelling sign is presumed to have been in advance wearing the front line when leading the stop on the side, it is difficult to accept the above assertion in full view of the following: (a) at the time, the defendant appears to have been in action; (b) there is no reason to unreasonably regulate the defendant by specifying the defendant; and (c) there is no inducement to make a false testimony by attending the court; and (d) there is no incentive to do so by taking account of the risks of the above evidence.

The reasons for sentencing are denied by the defendant, not against the defendant, and the degree of criminal punishment in the same case are in the trial of this case.