Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

On August 13, 2014, at around 06:00, the Defendant driven a CMF rocketing car and proceeded to turn to the left at the office of the west of the Gun on the side of the Haban-gun, Haban-gun, the third-distance road in front of the inside-distance distance in the northwest of the Haban-gun, Haban-gun.

The driver of a vehicle who intends to make a left-hand turn because he/she is an intersection where traffic is not controlled, has a duty of care to yield the course of the vehicle when there are other vehicles that intend to make a right-hand or right-hand turn on the intersection.

However, the Defendant neglected this and entered the left-hand turn to the NF rocketing from the north-west side of the Gun office, and caused a traffic accident that obstructs the progress of the victim vehicle and caused human damage to the victim, thereby violating the duty of driving at the intersection where the traffic is not controlled.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. E statements;

1. A report on the occurrence of a traffic accident and a report on actual condition investigation;

1. An appraisal report on a traffic accident and a comprehensive traffic accident analysis report;

1. A medical certificate;

1. On-site photographs and photographs of a black stuffe image data taken;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of finding the defendant's vehicle entering the intersection, which had been delayed after the victim's vehicle entered the intersection while driving in an excessive speed, and thus, the defendant was not negligent.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by this court, namely, black screen images and traffic accident assessment reports, it would have been judged that if the defendant discovered the victim vehicle at a recognizable location with the land and immediately avoided the accident, it would have been possible to stop the vehicle before the point of the occurrence of the accident in this case. The speed immediately before entering the crossing of the victim vehicle would have been 60 km or less per hour, which is the speed limit of 57-59 km or less per hour, and the defendant would have observed this.