When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle B with detached motor vehicles.

On September 29, 2017, the Defendant driven the above vehicle around 19:35 on September 29, 2017, and continued to turn to the left the intersection of the distance of 233 Maok-ro 233 Maocheon-ro, Daejeon, Daejeon, to the Korean left from the edge of the Mao-ro Nao-ro.

At this point, there is an intersection where signal lights are installed, so in such a case, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by driving safely in accordance with the signals and driving the person engaged in driving service.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded to the left turn without making a left turn turn turn turn turn turn, and the victim C(47 tax) driven by the victim C(47 tax) who was straight from the right right side to the left due to the normal signal, was found to be the front door of the vehicle driven by the Defendant.

As a result, the Defendant suffered, by its occupational negligence, approximately two weeks of injury to the above victim, around 2 weeks of tensions and tensions, the brush of the part of the wood, and human salt and tension, and around 31 years of age to other victims E (V, and 31 years of age) who were on board the above damaged vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement of C and E;

1. A survey report on actual conditions;

1. Each written diagnosis;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes reporting investigation results;

1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents under the relevant Act concerning criminal facts, Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The Criminal Procedure Act recognizes the circumstances or mistakes that have been caused by violating the reason signals for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and that the degree of breach of duty of care is not less than that of the victim, and that the victim did not agree upon the occurrence of two persons, etc.