Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

C is a driver of the DCC2.0 TDI car, and the defendant is a driver of the E Karen S car.

On June 3, 2017, the Defendant changed the two lanes from the same direction to the three-lane line while driving a four-lane of the road in front of the Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul, about 17:01, in the direction of the other three-lane, the Defendant changed the two-lanes from the same direction to the three-lane line while driving the road in front of the Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-nam, Seoul, about 258 at the shooting distance at the end of the punishment.

C and Si expenses were incurred.

Accordingly, C expressed the Defendant’s warning, “I see this dog,” and expressed the Defendant’s desire for change of course in the front of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant immediately kiddd from the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant was frightly frighted from the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle when C continues to drive the Defendant’s vehicle on the front side of the oman’s vehicle, and frighted from the front side of the oman’s vehicle, and frighted from the front side of the oman’s vehicle, and frightd from the road construction distance, such as red signal, by violating the signal at the intersection and the front side of the yellow mountain road, which may cause harm or danger to traffic for many unspecified vehicles.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect with regard to C;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to the Gabbbbbbbling video images, video data CDs

1. Article 151-2 of the relevant Act and Articles 151-2 and 46-2 subparagraph 1 and 5 of the Road Traffic Act, and selection of fines concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel in the summary of the argument are merely bracking the brake for the change of the vehicle in the state where C is able to drive away continuously and without a spirit, and do not immediately bruced, but the defendant violated the signal twice at the time, but it was true that the defendant violated the signal twice.