Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 50,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 25,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On February 9, 2017, the Defendant violated the signal or instruction indicating traffic safety facilities by driving a vehicle with a red signal while operating a car engine in the direction of the modern school located in the direction of the head of the modern city located in the 25th century at the Seoyang-si, Jyang-si, Namyang-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol of examination of the witness with regard to D and an explanatory note;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

1. Article 156 Subparag. 1 and Article 56 Subparag. 1 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 14356, Dec. 2, 2016); the selection of fines for criminal facts;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the issue of the main text of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the cost of lawsuit, passed through the intersection due to the time when the defendant entered the intersection of green signals to occupy the intersection of green signals, etc., did not violate the signal as stated in the facts charged of this case.

The following circumstances, which were duly adopted and examined by this Court, i.e., the control police officer D in this Court: “The Defendant was under the left-hand turn to the left-hand turn in the non-protective area; and at the time, the Defendant alleged that he did not violate the signal but did not work together with him.

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the Ethical defendant sent a left turn to the red flaps, etc., a relatively concrete and clear statement on the regulatory process, etc. to the effect that “the penalty was notified,” and that the credibility of the statement can be sufficiently recognized in light of the content, body, consistency, etc. of the police officer D’s statement, and any other circumstance that could otherwise be suspected of the credibility of the above statement cannot be discovered.