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

1. On October 27, 2012, the Defendant violated the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant intersection”) at around 06:40 on October 27, 2012, the Defendant was driving a Dapo-dopo-do private taxi to go straight from the entrance distance of the cargo office located in the Jeju-si 2-dong at the Jeju-si 2-dong (hereinafter “the instant intersection”). At the same time, the Defendant was undermining the victim’s right-hand side by damaging the vehicle from the offside of the Jeju Airport, which caused considerable damages to the victim, while the Defendant’s red stop signal on the Defendant’s driving direction was turned on before reaching the instant intersection, due to the negligence of entering the intersection and going to turn to the right-hand turn at the same time as the said stop signal, and at the same time, the Defendant was undermining the victim’s right-hand side of the vehicle at the same time, thereby causing considerable damages to 37 years, including 35 th of the above gate.

2. A motor vehicle owner who violated the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act operated a private taxi owned by the Defendant, who did not purchase a mandatory insurance policy at the time and place specified in paragraph (1), despite the fact that the said motor vehicle owner destroyed or damaged another person’s property due to the operation of a motor vehicle, has subscribed to a liability insurance or liability mutual aid

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each testimony of witness F, D and G;

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that they did not violate the Defendant’s signal regarding the crime set forth in Article 1 of the Criminal Act (violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the Violation of the Road Traffic Act), although the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that they did not violate the Defendant’s signal, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, i., the police and the court: