The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On March 30, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 14:20, the Defendant: (b) drive a vehicle franced by the victim E (Seoul, South, 47 years old) driving in the direction of the Sinsi-dong, Man-dong-dong, in the speed of one-lane from among the four-lanes to the pelan-si; (c) in the intersection where traffic is controlled by signal, etc. at the front intersection, the Defendant had the duty of care to proceed in accordance with the signals; (d) in the course of the operation, the Defendant had the duty of care to proceed in accordance with the signals; (e) the former signal was negligent in the operation of the U.S. in the U.S. head box; (e) the traffic of the victim E (Seoul, 47 years old) driving in the direction of the Sinnam-si, Man-si; and (e) the victim was using the road to avoid collision; and (e) the victim suffered an artificial injury between five months following the operation.

2. The Defendant consistently asserted that he did not violate the signal from investigative agencies to this Court.

As evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, there are statements in the investigation agency of E, G, H, and I and in this court, H, the police officer, and reports on the occurrence of a traffic accident (investigative Records 13 pages), prepared by the police officer at the time of the I accident, and reports on the occurrence of a traffic accident prepared by the police officer J on May 20, 2013, 1 and 2 (investigative Records 4 pages).

The left turn turn turn turn turn is reported by the Defendant, and the Defendant, who was the opposite one-lane, stated to the effect that the instant accident occurred because he violated the signal and went beyond the center line, while playing, E made a statement to the effect that there was an accident. However, E did not make a statement to the effect that he was a party involved in the accident by making a false statement as to whether there was a defendant’s accompanying, and that he did not make a statement to the effect that he was a person on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle.