Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for eight months.

Punishment of the crime

On November 27, 2010, the Defendant driving a C observer car around 19:00, and turned to the left at a speed of 10-15 km from the west-gu, Seonam-dong, Seonam-gu, Gwangju, to the right-hand turn to the left at a speed of 10-15 km from the west-do, the front side of the Western University.

In this case, the driver has a duty of care to safely drive the signal by complying with the signal.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and did not discover a non-registration 110 cc Orala driven by the victim D (the aged 18) who was directly driven by the victim D (the aged 18) who was directly driven by the Hanam-do from the Hanam-dong room to the Hanam-do bank, the left turn to the right turn to the right turn to both direction, and did not discover a 110cc Orala which was driven by the victim D (the aged 18) and caused the victim to suffer an injury, such as paralysis, etc. which the victim did not cause the victim to do so

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, E, witness F and G respectively;

1. Partial statement of the defendant in the suspect examination protocol against the defendant;

1. Some statements made in the police statement (48 pages of investigation records) related to D and the police statement statement related to G;

1. Each written diagnosis;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. Traffic accident photographs;

1. The provisions of statutes shall also apply to the system for signalling the Seodaemun Information System for the emotional distress;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel’s argument regarding criminal facts, Article 3(1) and proviso to Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents at the Time of the Accident, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, shall be denied by asserting that the defendant did not violate the signal to the left at the time of the accident.

(1) However, the victim D statements to the effect that it was a direct signal at the time of entry into the intersection consistently until this court, and the victim D statements to the effect that it was an accident at the time of the accident.