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

The Defendant is a person driving a rocketing car.

On April 10, 2015, the Defendant driven the above car on April 11:5, 2015, and changed the lane from the front line of the E-lane located in Gwangju Nam-gu, to the fourth lane in order, and proceeded to the backside of the Insane High School from the ICside to the next side of the Insane High School.

Since there have been many vehicles that are divided into two lanes, they have a duty of care to take care of not creating a risk of causing trouble to normal traffic of other vehicles by reducing speed and keeping the right and the right and the right and the right of the road on the road.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and negligently changed the course of the F (32) driving in two lanes in the same direction, thereby causing concern over obstructing the passage of the G Poter Free Freight in the same direction as that of the F (32) driving.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and H;

1. On-site photographs of a traffic accident (the fact that the defendant has changed the lane from the fourth lane of the road above to the first lane, but there was no possibility that the situation of the operation of the road at the time or the passage of other vehicles under the conditions of the road would be hindered;

The argument is asserted.

However, in full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant was rapidly changed the lane in the situation where the above F et al. might interfere with the normal operation of the vehicle at the time.

may be appointed by a person.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

① The F testified that “the vehicle of the Defendant was in progress along the two lanes of the above road at that time, and the vehicle of the Defendant was immediately changed from the four lanes to the two lanes in a straight line, and was rapidly changed to the one lane in order to avoid a conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle in the future.” The F testified that “The vehicle of the Defendant was in progress along the two lanes of the above road at that time.”