At night, there was a flow of the front door view due to the decline of the time, and the location was the intersection where signal lights are installed, all drivers had a duty of care to reduce the speed, to live well on the front door and the right and the right, and to drive safely according to their signals.

Nevertheless, due to the negligence of neglecting this, the Defendant neglected and proceeded with the signal and caused the Defendant to shock the front part of the Defendant’s driving vehicle by blocking the course of the victim E (the 46-year-old driver) driving in the direction of the left side of the sports ground in the direction of the direction of the Defendant’s driving direction, and by blocking the course of the victim E (the 46-year-old driver) driving.

As a result, the defendant suffered from the victim's sexual frames, slots, right sleaks, etc., which require about four weeks of treatment.

2. On the other hand, the defendant's defense counsel's written statement at the investigative agency of the victim's investigative agency as to the defendant's access to the intersection in violation of his own signal cannot be deemed to have been made in so-called "specific correspondence condition". Although the victim's defense counsel's written statement at the investigative agency of the victim's investigative agency as to the defendant's access to the intersection cannot be deemed to have been made in so-called "specific correspondence condition", even though it is impossible to attend and make a statement in the court because the person making the original statement is missing, the admissibility of evidence may not be granted by applying Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as a requirement for exceptionally recognized admissibility under the same Article,