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

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a driver of CA110E C vehicle owned by himself.

On May 21, 2014, the Defendant driven the above vehicle around 20:18, and proceeded at an insular speed in accordance with one lane between the two lanes in the direction of the early entry industrial complex in Jinyang-gu, Jinyang-gu, Jinyang-si, Jin-do.

At all times, there is an intersection where signal lights are installed.

In such cases, the driver of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to confirm whether there is a motor vehicle traveling through the intersection by reducing speed and checking the side well, and to prevent accidents in advance by driving safely according to the traffic sign.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and violated a signal.

From the eyang to the direction of the Jinyang, the victim D(n, 48 years old) driver's character E's right door of the vehicle in the direction of the direction of the Jinyang conflict with the left side of the vehicle.

As a result, the defendant suffered injury, such as an infection, which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment to the victim D due to occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D and F;

1. Actual condition survey report, traffic accident occurrence report and investigation report;

1. Application of each field photograph, diagnosis certificate (D), display card-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Settlement of Traffic Accidents concerning Criminal Facts, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine)

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

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendant did not violate the signal at the time, this paper examines this issue.

In light of the traffic signal system, the defendant and witness D are judged to be in compliance with the other party's signal when they are in conflict with each other.