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

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a motor vehicle B.

On December 12, 2011, the Defendant driven the above car on December 09:12, 201, and driven the 325-30-way, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, along the two-lanes from the opposite side of the Grur market road to the opposite side of the Grurur market road, proceeded at a speed of about 10km per hour, and changed the course.

Since the place is the large traffic of vehicles, a person engaged in driving service of a motor vehicle has a duty of care not to change course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction of change when he/she intends to change course of the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, if the Defendant neglected this and negligently changed the course to the right side as it is, the Defendant, driving three-lanes in the same direction as that of the horse DK 5 passenger-type taxi driving by C (55) with three-lanes in the same direction, has the front part of the left side of the passenger-type taxi, thereby obstructing the normal passage of the above passenger-type taxi.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A traffic accident report;

1. Control note;

1. Photographss related to the traffic accident and photographs to close a taxi boom;

1. An investigation report (in response to results of raising an objection against a traffic accident);

1. Payment of the results of handling traffic accidents;

1. Application of the statute as a result of the verification of black boxes CDs;

1. Relevant Article 156 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 19 (3) of the same Act concerning the facts constituting a crime.

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

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant, when the other taxi was travelling through normal roads and was waiting for a signal signal at the immediately preceding crosswalk, was in violation of the instant signal even though the instant accident did not exist, and thus, the Defendant, via the two-lane and three-lane, went into conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle bypassing via the three-lanes, and rather, is the Defendant’s vehicle.