The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaged in the duty of driving Csi.

On December 25, 2015, at around 06:30, the Defendant continued two lanes of the two-lanes in front of the D-do lux apartment from the luxa-dong lux apartment to the luxa bus terminal in the direction of the luxa-dong luxa-dong, and made a left turn to the luxa-dong luxbbalping port.

The place is where the center line is installed, and the surrounding area at the time was narrow, so in such a case, there was a duty of care to make a left-hand turn after a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle, without breaking the center line in the place where the left-hand turn is permitted, and there was a duty of care to make a left-hand turn.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to turn left at the center line without neglecting the front-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri (hereinafter)

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim by occupational negligence, such as mination of the right-side executives in need of treatment for about 14 weeks.

2. According to the evidence submitted to determine whether a defendant has violated the center line or not, there is doubt as to whether a defendant has violated the center line when the defendant makes a left-hand turn.

However, according to the record, it is recognized that there is a signal at the road surface at the point where the defendant left the left and that there is a left-hand and U-turn, and the point where the defendant left the left is terminated and the left-hand and the left-hand and the left-hand and the point where the center line begins and the center line ends is difficult to recognize the center line because the relevant vehicle is worn out.

Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant committed a left-hand turn with the center line alone, and even if so, he invaded a virtual center line.