If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The defendant is engaged in driving driving of Cros vehicles.

On July 3, 2012, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 14:00, and changed the two-lanes of the two-lane road in front of the U.S. Seo-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, into a one-lane course, depending on the two-lane distance from the National Statistical Office.

In such cases, when it is likely that a person engaged in driving service of a motor vehicle may impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction of the change, he/she shall not change his/her course, and he/she has the duty of care to give prior notice of change of course and to prevent accidents by safely changing the lane through the operation of direction direction, etc. in order to ensure the well-being of traffic

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and changes the lanes.

A victim D (ma, 32 years old) who runs approximately about 60km/h depending on one lane in the same direction interfered with the course of the Esch Rexroth vehicle operated by the victim, and the left side of the defendant and the part of the victim's right side of the vehicle conflict.

As a result, the Defendant damaged the damaged vehicle by occupational negligence so that the amount of repair costs, such as the exchange of front-hander, can be considered.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. On-site photographs and related photographs;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of the written estimate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act concerning criminal facts, and selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. There is a fact that the defendant damaged a damaged vehicle in determining the defendant's assertion on the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

As stated in the facts charged, it is argued that the amount of 10,508,960 won is not damaged.

It was destroyed that the amount of KRW 10,508,960, as stated in the facts charged, was damaged only by the statement of the written estimate submitted by the victim.