Judgment

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant and his defense counsel met the victim with warning lights rapidly while she met with his/her friendship in the roadside, and they met with the victim on the crosswalks, and that he/she does not intentionally block.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence, the following circumstances are acknowledged.

1) The Defendant, as soon as possible, overtakeed F, who is walking at a speed more than two meters after E, and at the time, E was walking along a way more than the accompanying person, and the location where physical contact between the Defendant and E occurred. Finally, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was faced with the pedestrian crossing in light of the fact that the Defendant’s seat is front of signal signal lights, there is considerable credibility of the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s walked the pedestrian crossing, and the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was faced with the signal lights. 2) At the time, E was put up by the ar while the ar was her her fright, but was sufficient to look back on “h” and “h,” and that physical contacts took place.

The possibility of not being able to feel in contact with other body parts may not be ruled out because her macker is close to the shock side, and her macker is so so so so long that her macks do not feel in contact with another body.

3. The witness G dices the Defendant’s drinking on the day of the instant case in this court, but the Defendant dices the tobacco and returned to the first place without contact because of the leaving of his cellular phone. This is consistent with the F’s statement that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant’s circumstance or circumstance that the Defendant was faced with the Defendant’s walking of the crosswalk in the state of drinking. In addition, it also accords with the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol.

(b).