On December 22, 2010, the Defendant, at the time of Daejeon Pungdong on December 22:10, 2010, turned down the flow from the parallel of Korea to the four-lane distance in the direction of the street.

Since there is a place where a signal, etc. is installed, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to check whether there is a person who is responsible for driving service to reduce speed and to check the right and the right and the right, and to drive safely according to the new subparagraph.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so, while proceeding with the vehicle straight signal, was due to the negligence that the vehicle straightened and proceeded. At this time, the front front and rear door of the DESMIS car, which turn to the left at the right angle signal in the direction of the front direction of the Madlese-distance from the Madles off of the Madlese-distance.

Ultimately, due to the above occupational negligence, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim E (the South and the 33 years old), such as fluoral salt, etc., which requires treatment for about three weeks, and injury to the victim F (the 48 years old), such as dluoral dluoral dale, bones, etc., which requires treatment for about four weeks.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected of guilty, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

B. The Defendant asserts that the instant accident occurred by negligence entering the instant intersection by violating E’s signal, whereas the Defendant asserts that E was in breach of the signal.

In a case where the parties have violated each other’s signals, they are convicted.