If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The defendant is a dump truck driver.

On March 24, 2018, the defendant, around 08:17, run four-lanes to the 2nd apartment complex between the new port No. 13, which is located in the Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Changwon-si, Gowon-si, Gowon-si.

At all times, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by driving safely according to traffic signals to persons engaged in driving on the intersection where signal, etc. is installed.

Nevertheless, even though the Defendant neglected to stop the front signal, the Defendant was on the left-hand side of the driving direction and passed the intersection by left-hand turn from the left-hand side of the moving direction and passed the intersection in accordance with the new code, and received the part on the left-hand side of the instant truck operated by the victim D(48 Do) who operated an adjacent section of the signal crossing, as the part on the left-hand side of the Defendant’s driving.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as light salt, which requires approximately three weeks of medical treatment, due to such occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A fact-finding survey report (No. 5 No. 5 in the evidence list);

1. A signal system at the scene of an accident;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on CCTVs to vehicles, on-site photographs, on-site examinations of accidents, CCTV images closures, and CCTV video CDs;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) and Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents Aggravated Punishment, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant did not violate the signal at the time of the accident, and the Defendant’s negligence did not cause an accident.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence presented prior to the determination, the Defendant was in a direct position in violation of the signal.