If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a motor vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle.

On July 18, 2014, the Defendant driven the above car at around 23:05, and made a left turn to the left in order to enter the apartment door while driving the road in front of the Hanyang-ro 48-ro 22 Hanyang apartment 1, Songpa-gu Seoul, Seoul, with the front door of the Hanri-ro 48-ro 22 Hanyang apartment.

Since there is a place where the center line of yellow power lines is installed at the entrance of the apartment door, the driver has a duty of care to check carefully whether there is a vehicle driven in the opposite part after the center line is stopped from the stop line to the stop line, and to prevent the accident in advance by safely checking it.

Nevertheless, without properly verifying the progress of the vehicle that is in progress in opposite directions, the Defendant got out of the front part of the motor vehicle driving ahead of the motor vehicle driving by the victim D(38 years old) who is going to the left by the mistake of the center line before reaching the stop line, without checking the progress of the motor vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered damages to the victim by occupational negligence, such as the one having an open standing within 12 weeks of medical treatment, which is caused by the injury to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witnesses D and E's respective legal statements;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. A traffic accident report;

1. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s assertion of the medical certificate does not constitute a case where the Defendant violated the proviso of Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, since the Defendant’s act of intrusion upon the central line does not constitute a direct cause of traffic accident, although the Defendant had operated the central line at the time of the

P.O. Doctrine, witness D, E’s each legal statement and doctor F.