The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of a passenger car in BSP.

On March 28, 2017, the Defendant operated the said car on March 11:13, 2017, and proceeded in the direction of the exit exit of the main road in the direction of Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, which is three-lanes from the access road to the intersection of the main road in Seo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, while driving in the direction of the exit exit of the main road, which is located on the intersection of the main road, and the Defendant violated the prohibition of cutting the vehicle into two-lanes, which are the direction of the direction of the passage of the main road.

2. The prosecutor charged the charged facts of this case on the grounds of violation of Article 156 subparag. 3 and Article 22(3) of the Road Traffic Act.

It was originally charged with the ‘Article 23 of the Road Traffic Act', but it was changed to the ‘Article 22 (3) of the Road Traffic Act', which is a provision prohibiting the front of the trial proceeding.

Article 22(3) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "no driver of any motor vehicle shall overtake another motor vehicle at any place falling under any of the following subparagraphs" and subparagraph 4 of the same Article provides that "1. intersection:

2. Within a tunnel;

3. The surface of a bridge;

4. Also, local police officers’ measures such as the bend of a road, the vicinity of the summit of a sloping road, or the decline of a steep slope are deemed necessary to prevent danger on the road and ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic on the road, and are also designated as safety signs.

The Defendant’s act indicated in the facts charged of the instant case is not “violation of prohibition of cutting,” not “violation of prohibition of cutting,” but “violation of prohibition of cutting in front,” but in order to punish the Defendant for violation of the front right under Article 22(3) of the Road Traffic Act, the place where the Defendant controlled should be “the place where the Defendant was designated by the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency as a place where the right to set up a safety sign is prohibited.”

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence, the fact that the Defendant set up a plug card, “in the course of video control” at the place where the Defendant was in control of the violation of the right to wrong is recognized.