Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where a defendant fails to pay a fine, one hundred thousand won shall be the day.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving C, and around 08:00 on October 26, 2013, the Defendant operated the said car, and the way four-lanes in the indictment written in front of the gallony department store located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul, is deemed to be the error of the "Seong River".

From the surface of the bank, a gallonyian department store cross-road and stopped in accordance with the cross-section in order to make a U-turn. In such a case, a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle was negligent in driving the motor vehicle in accordance with the new code, despite his/her occupational duty to prevent the accident, and due to negligence before the U-turn enters the left-hand signal permissible to the U.S., the victim D (33 years old) who entered the intersection in violation of the cross-section signal in the opposite direction, caused the above part of the motor vehicle driven by the defendant in front of the right side of the motor vehicle driven by the victim D(33 years old) who entered the intersection, in violation of the cross-section signal in the opposite direction.

Summary of Evidence

1. A traffic accident report;

1. Photographs of the accident site;

1. Scephs of CCTV in the Control Center (excluding the part of a photographer taken-off);

1. Application of the Medical Certificate (D) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in the Selection of Punishment, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The Defendant’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, even though the Defendant did not violate the internship signal as indicated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment, or was somewhat as soon as possible than the normal domestic internship signal, the instant traffic accident occurred by the Defendant’s total negligence. Thus, the instant traffic accident occurred.