도로교통법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant’s Trackor entered the intersection above the city bus No. 138 (hereinafter “victim”) and the instant accident was caused by the negligence of entering the intersection as it is, even though F, an engineer of the damaged vehicle discovered the Defendant’s Trackor, and it was not caused by the fault of the victim.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant on a different premise is erroneous in misconception of facts.
2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the victim vehicle's cream image before passing the crosswalk (refer to 8 pages of investigation records) in order to make the Defendant's cream transit, it is confirmed that the damaged vehicle has already entered the intersection; the defendant's cater was in the shape much more than the body of the vehicle due to the fact that the cater has lost the cater, so there was a need to operate the vehicle at a sufficient distance so that the cater does not contact other vehicles; the intersection where the accident occurred without traffic control; the intersection where the accident occurred and there was a yellow cirr signal; the defendant has a duty of care to yield the course to the vehicle that first entered the intersection while taking care of other vehicles; the defendant has not yield the course to the damaged vehicle first entering the intersection, and the driver of the Road Traffic Act has to drive the vehicle into the intersection and has already failed to pass the intersection when he does not yield the course to another vehicle.
In particular, the Defendant’s Track tried to keep bypass without stopping the front part of the damaged vehicle even after it had passed through the intersection;
. investigation records;