Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

On October 19, 2017, the Defendant driven a Cubur car around 00:10 on October 19, 2017, while driving it along the front-dong of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, driving it toward the Gyeonggi-do distance from the southwest-dong side of Young-dong. The Defendant violated red signals.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. An explanatory note;

1. On-site photographs;

1. An accident scene forest;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (referring to witness E and telephone conversations);

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 156 subparagraph 1 and 5 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

2. Article 70 (1) and Article 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse.

3. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order (the grounds for conviction) asserted that the defendant started a U-turn from green lights on the date and time set by the defendant, and was changed to a yellow flickering light on and off in the middle. Thus, the defendant did not violate the signal.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., ① Police E who controlled the Defendant, clearly judged that the Defendant’s vehicle was on a red signal signal, and that the Defendant’s vehicle was viewed from the time when the Defendant’s vehicle was exposed to the first U.S. class to the first U.S. class for the reason that the relevant place was a large place of violation of signal.

2. The witness stated that the procedure was complicatedly recognized because he was not in violation of the signal at the time when he was changed to yellow light from his green light.

Even if it is not clear whether the Defendant’s post-ship relationship with the Defendant’s vehicle was unclear, and the Defendant’s vehicle did not violate the signal solely based on the above statement.

The fact that it is difficult to conclude, ③ the above F was controlled by the previous vehicle during the process of not being a U-turning signal but changing red fire, yellow fire, yellow fire, and yellow fire.” The signal apparatus is changed.