A defendant shall be punished by a minor fine of forty thousand won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above minor fine, 20,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant driven his own B B B B B vehicles.

On November 2, 2016, the Defendant started a signal signal atmosphere from three-lanes, including the left-hand turn turn, at the back of the station in the air of the stimuli-gu, Young-si on November 22, 2016, and changed the course to three-lanes in the direction of the new distance.

A driver has a duty of care to confirm whether there is a vehicle driving on the lane intended for the change of course, and to change the right and the right of the vehicle in a safe way before and after the direction of the course.

Nevertheless, due to the negligence of changing the vehicle line, the part of the driver's seat in front of the city bus driver's seat in the victim E-driving Fri-do, which is driven over 3 and 4 lanes prior to the same direction, was damaged by shocking the part of the driver's seat in front of the city bus driver's seat in the defendant's operation, and shocking the part of the defendant's operation, and causing injury to the defendant's salt, tensions, and tensions that require treatment for two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Results from viewing video CDs at the time of an accident;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of the fact-finding survey, the Defendant asserted that there was no violation of the duty to drive safety on the bus platform by failing to do so even though the bus of the other party to the accident starts from the point of departure after stopping the bus platform, and does not protect a small vehicle.

According to the result of viewing video CD at the time of the accident, it is recognized that the other party bus in the accident operated part of 3 lanes before the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as a result of the above viewing, i.e., ① the Defendant’s automobile was behind the other party’s bus, and thus, it was possible to verify the situation where some other party’s bus was carrying a three-party bus, and ② the Defendant.