도로교통법위반
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 120,000 won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 60,000 won.
Punishment of the crime
On August 21, 2018, the Defendant driving a D car in front of the fixed door of the C Elementary School located in Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-si, 10:49 on August 21, 2018, and proceeding into an amendment district room in the E middle School, and the vehicle signal, etc. installed there was a red signal.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. The Defendant asserted that, at the time of the instant case, a penalty payment notice, driving career certificate, on-site photograph, on-site photograph, traffic signal management ledger (determination on the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel) was illegal because the signal at the private-distance intersection located on the 50m prior to the instant case was carried out without verifying the signal at the point where the instant case occurred, the Defendant did not have the intention of violating the signal, and even if the intention of violating the signal was recognized, the signal at the point where the instant occurred, which is not linked with the signal at the private-distance intersection located on the 50m prior to the recognition of the driver’s violation, constitutes a sort of naval control to induce the driver’s violation of the signal.
However, according to each of the above evidence, the control point of this case is a road connected to the elementary school regularly in the right direction of the defendant, which is located in the front of the elementary school, and a stop line is installed immediately after the front of the elementary school. In light of this, in addition to the fact that anyone can easily recognize that the signal, etc. is installed at the point where this case occurred, considering that it is a place where the driver can easily recognize that the signal, etc. is installed at the point where the signal, etc. is installed, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant has the intention of violating the signal provision.
Furthermore, according to the above evidence, the defendant asserts that the point of occurrence and the signal of this case are not linked.