도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the driver of Crocketing private taxi, and when driving the above vehicle around 00:40 on February 28, 2015 and changing the course from the first lane to the second lane on the 128-lane road in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant breached the method of changing the course when there is a concern that a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle would impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction of the change, and the Defendant violated the method of changing the course without neglecting his/her duty of care, despite the fact that he/she has the duty of care to give prior notice of change of course by operating the direction direction, etc., and to safely change the lane and prevent the accident by safely changing the course without neglecting it.
(A) The prosecutor filed the instant prosecution by applying Article 19(1) of the Road Traffic Act (the prosecution of this case).
A. The prosecutor prosecuted the above facts charged by applying Article 156 subparag. 1 and Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act, and the defendant and his defense counsel denied the charges that the defendant had already been driving on a two-lane after changing the lane, but the EK5 car of D Driving, which was followed by the defendant (hereinafter “HV car”), changed the course from the three-lane to the two-lane to the two-lane way.
B. One on-site photo description file is inadmissible inasmuch as the Defendant did not agree to use as evidence, and it was not recognized by the statement made by the original person, all of which are inadmissible, on the grounds that: (a) the F’s control note (17 pages of investigation records); (b) the de facto survey note (24 pages of investigation records); and (c) one CD in which data related to accident investigation are stored.
Meanwhile, in the F’s written opinion (20 pages of the investigation record), Defendant taxi to the effect that “Defendant taxi was involved in an accident at a two-lane from the first lane to the second two-lane,” and that “Defendant taxi to the effect that Defendant taxi was involved in the first lane and the second lane after the accident.”