The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The Defendant is a driver of Obane at C 125 cc.

On May 25, 2011, the Defendant driven the above Oralb in the KTex distance south-dong, South and North Korea, in order to drive the said Oralb, and driven the three-lane of the three-lane road (including the two-lanes) in the vicinity of the chamber of commerce and industry in the direction of the central border.

The driver of any motor vehicle in a private distance intersection where signal lights are installed has a duty of care to drive the motor vehicle slowly at the intersection where signal lights are installed and to drive the motor vehicle safely according to its signals.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and caused the victim D (the 34 years old) driver D (the driver of the injured vehicle) to suffer a scarbling room in the left-hand side of the driver of the injured vehicle requiring approximately two weeks of medical treatment, due to the shock of the victim D (the driver of the injured vehicle)'s left-hand side in front of the left-hand side of the driver's vehicle's e-fababa in the drive of the E-fababa in front of the driver's left-hand side of the driver's length, and the victim F (the driver of the same vehicle) who is the same passenger, about two weeks of medical treatment.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant consistently asserted from the investigative agency to this court, that “the speed of the Lao is reduced, and the Defendant proceeded at a speed of 30 km per hour without stopping by either straight signal from the 30m prior to that of the shooting distance to the straight signal.” It is argued that, rather than the Defendant’s violation of the signal, the victim D did not engage in a violation of the signal, the direct signal in the direction of the proceeding was rapidly changed, and even though the direct signal in the direction of the Defendant’s proceeding was included, the Defendant caused an accident that shocks on the part of the Defendant’s driving while driving a tag even though the direct signal in the direction of the proceeding was made.

3. The evidence that corresponds to the above facts charged lies in the statements in D, F and G investigative agencies and this court, and conforms to the defendant's appeal.