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

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of Chived vehicle.

On January 3, 2015, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 19:30, and got to turn to the left at the right of the two-lanes of the red hotel distance intersection in the Daejeon Peong-gu University from the lux of the hotel to the lux of the Chungcheongnam-gu University.

At this point, since the signal was installed, the defendant engaged in driving of the motor vehicle had a duty of care to properly see the right and the right and the right of the motor vehicle and to prevent the accident in advance by driving the motor vehicle safely in accordance with the new code.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and received the full part of the Eknop vehicle from the victim D's driver's vehicle, which was proceeding in accordance with the new name, from the area of the main body of the Eknop vehicle in the vicinity of the YY and the left-hand turn due to the occupational negligence on the part of the Defendant's driver's vehicle.

As a result, the Defendant caused the victim D to suffer from the scopic scopical scopher of the trend requiring approximately three weeks of medical treatment, and, at the same time, caused the victim F who was on board the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle to enter the scopic scopic scopic sc

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness D and G’s respective legal statements and defense counsel proceeded in accordance with the new subparagraph, and the defendant asserts that the vehicle driven by D was caused by an accident while making an illegal internship.

In light of the fact that an accident occurred due to a defendant's vehicle that violated the signal and left-hand turn, D's statements in the investigation agency and this court and the signal on the lane adjacent to D's vehicle at the time of the accident, and the statements in the investigation agency of vehicle drivers G and in this court directly witness the scene of the accident are specific, consistent and consistent with each other, the fact that the defendant violated the signal as stated in the facts charged.