Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a Cgner car.

On May 8, 2013, the Defendant driven the said car and changed the lane from May 15, 2013 to the four-lanes in front of the Roman Zone, Seo-gu, Daejeon, into the Doma-dong along the three-lane from the Doma-dong.

In this case, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent the accident in advance by changing the vehicle line through the operation of direction direction, etc. to give notice of change of course, and the situation of traffic in the front and rear left.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and received the part on the right side of the Defendant’s driving vehicle, which was driven along four-lanes due to the negligence of changing the direction-setting line without operating the direction-setting, etc., on the part of the Defendant’s driving vehicle.

Ultimately, even though the repair cost of KRW 873,806, such as the exchange of front-handers by occupational negligence above, destroyed the above bus to the extent, the Defendant escaped without taking measures necessary for preventing danger and smooth communication on the road.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. A traffic accident report;

1. Written estimate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigative reports;

1. Relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Act and Articles 148 and 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the selection of criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserts that the instant accident did not have been issued by the Defendant’s negligence, and that the Defendant did not constitute a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (i.e., violation of the Act) since the accident was not known at the time, the instant accident is considered comprehensively taking account of the evidence indicated in the judgment, i.e., the Defendant’s investigation agency, the driver of the victimized vehicle, and the statement