The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person driving C sm5 automobiles as a duty.

On February 6, 2017, the Defendant driving the above vehicle at around 05:58 on February 6, 2017, and left the 146 BR crossing in front of the notice of the public vehicle of 146 BR.

From the viewing side, the right turn to the left turn has been proceeded to the side of the opposite party.

The location is where the passage of vehicles is frequent through the private street intersection where signal lights are installed.

In such a case, the driver has a duty of care to safely drive traffic signals and traffic signs in order to prevent accidents in advance, as to whether there is a vehicle traveling along the intersection by reducing speed and by properly examining the right and the right and the right of the road, and whether there is a pedestrian walking along the crosswalk, and as to whether there is a pedestrian walking.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and went to the left at the intersection from three-lanes prior to the right-hand side of the front line to turn to the intersection, and the Defendant was the victim D (66 cm, south) who passed the crosswalks and passed the bicycle on the front part of the vehicle driven by the Defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim D, by negligence in the above business, such as a pellet, closedness, and a satisfy in the open two sides of the drilling, which require approximately four weeks of treatment to the victim D.

2. Determination

A. Part 1) The defendant and his defense counsel did not violate the signal.

The argument is asserted.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, there is a considerable relation between the negligence that the Defendant entered the intersection before the left-hand turn signals and left-hand turn pursuant to the new subparagraph and the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, without stopping the stop line.

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be seen as having caused the instant traffic accident due to the Defendant’s negligence in violation of the report.

recognized.