도로교통법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. In other words, the Defendant, at around 14:43 on October 8, 2015, driven the COtoba and driven the COba, thereby violating the traffic signal installed around the intersection by the 4-ro, e.g., the COba, while the COba was proceeding from the private distance bank to the intersection by the 4-ro, the COba.
2. According to the evidence duly admitted, in light of the following circumstances, the Defendant violated the traffic signals only by entering the witness D’s statement or control report alone.
It is difficult to readily conclude, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
(a) The defendant violated;
The Cheongdo 4 is not changed to the ongoing signal at the same time between the traffic signal at the intersection where the traffic signal (hereinafter “No. 1”) and the traffic signal at the intersection where the traffic signal at the intersection where the 4th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e
B. Control police officers stated to the effect that it is not reasonable to violate the signals No. 1 because pedestrians are travelling along the above crosswalk while crossing the road on the crosswalks with the first new signals.
However, the road run by the defendant is an area where the commercial buildings, such as lighting companies, are densely concentrated by both sides, and the vehicle is set up on the road due to frequent traffic of pedestrians in the ordinary place of the road as a summary of traffic. Therefore, pedestrians are not able to complete the crossing even though pedestrians illegally cross the road or the pedestrian crossing signal was changed to the vehicle driving signal despite the traffic prohibition signals.