The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, who is engaged in driving of Cwing-III cargo vehicles, driven the above vehicle around 17:40 on April 1, 2014 and proceeded to turn to the left at the intersection of the two-lane distance in front of the E-mail restaurant in the Hannam-gun, Hannam-gun, while parking on the road in front of the “F iron Co., Ltd.” in front of the “F iron Co., Ltd.” prior to the left turn to the left.

At the time, if the defendant started to turn to the left after leaving the center line and the crosswalk of the yellow-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-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and stopped and driven the central line and the crosswalk in the form of a large-scale line with a road, and caused the collision between the driver G (the age of 32) driver's driver's front of the driver's driving of the victim G (the age of 32) driving and the front of the driver's vehicle and the door even in the form of a large-scale line.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the above victim due to the above occupational negligence, such as brain injury requiring four weeks medical treatment.

Maz.

1. A traffic accident at a central line, which is, where a traffic accident has occurred due to an act of driving a motor vehicle while driving a motor vehicle at a central line of the road, refers to the case where the act of intrusion at a central line directly causes the occurrence of the traffic accident, and if the act of intrusion at a central line is not the direct cause of the occurrence of the traffic accident, the traffic accident does not include the case where the traffic accident occurred while the central line is being driven at the center

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do1200, Jun. 28, 1994). 2. Witness G and I’s respective legal statements.