Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On April 26, 2015, the Defendant driving a CSS3 car at around 17:00, and driving a road of three-lanes in front of the E station in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, at a speed of 60km per hour from the surface of the Incheon driver's license test site to the surface of the Sindo New City.

Since there is an intersection where signal lights are installed, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to drive safely according to good faith.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and neglected to turn to the left from the right-hand side of the Defendant’s moving direction due to the negligence in the yellow flick, which caused the Defendant to go to the left-hand side of the Defendant’s moving direction (52 years old), and led to the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered from the injury to the Victim F and the Victim H (V, 42 years of age) who is the passenger of the victimized vehicle due to the foregoing occupational negligence, such as fluoral salt, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A statement of the occurrence of H traffic accidents;

1. A report on the occurrence of a traffic accident and a report on actual condition investigation;

1. Each written diagnosis (F, H);

1. Accident video (107 pages of black stuffs, investigation records) (the Defendant and the defense counsel at the time of the instant case, as the signal apparatus was cut off due to abnormal yellow flickerings, etc. as at the time of the instant cross-section, and thus, the above acts by the Defendant do not constitute a violation of signal, and accordingly, a normal yellow signal has been cut off.

Even if the defendant who entered the intersection has already entered the intersection, the situation is that the defendant should promptly proceed out of the intersection, so it does not constitute a violation of signal.

The argument is asserted.

The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the signal apparatus at the intersection in the direction of the defendant's proceeding at the time of the instant case was broken, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, this is the case.