Since there is a long distance from among the strings equipped with signal apparatus, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to properly report signal apparatus and to prevent accidents by driving in accordance with signals as instructed by signal apparatus.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and continued to proceed at the same speed while changing the signal to the stop signal, and continued to enter the intersection in the opposite direction and proceeding along with the moving signal from the opposite direction, and the FHJ125T-3 Obaba, driven by the victim E (E, South and 26 years old), operated by the Defendant, was fHJ125T-3 Oba, in order to avoid the collision with the vehicle driven by the Defendant, and was in contact on the left side, but did not contact with the Defendant.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the above victim by occupational negligence, such as salt pansty, right sprink, sprinking spons, right hump, salt spons and tension in the right hump, sponsing part of the right hump, salt sponsing part of the right hump, and tension.

2. The judgment is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court (a protocol of interrogation of a police officer against the defendant and a statement of traffic accident occurrence status, which are similar to a motor vehicle owned by the defendant, are inadmissible as the defendant denies its content) and in particular, the traffic accident in this case is assessed by other vehicles.