The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

A. On April 11, 2018, the Defendant: (a) driven the Ctecacacacacacacacacacaca on April 21, 2018; (b) driven the front side of the upper intersection road located in the Ctecacacacac, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; (c) from the lower bank to the lower bank, the front side of the two-lanes of the two-lanes, at the speed of 70 to 75 km per hour, depending on the one-lane. Since the location was the intersection where the signal was installed, a person engaged in driving the motor vehicle, who was in charge of driving the motor vehicle, was negligent in performing the duty of care of operating the steering and brakes accurately in accordance with the new subparagraph, but was negligent in driving the remaining signals, thereby causing the victim’s injury to the right side part of the motor vehicle and the victim’s injury during the day when he was in violation of the duty of care.

B. The lower court, based on the following circumstances in its reasoning, acquitted the Defendant on the instant facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s violation of the signal was a direct cause of the instant traffic accident, even if the Defendant did not withhold a direct judgment as to whether the Defendant violated the signal.

2. In light of the purport of the grounds for appeal that the instant traffic accident occurred adjacent to the intersection of the private road, it is presumed that the damaged vehicle with the U.S. drivered with the U.S. drivered with the U.S. was presumed that there was no situation outside the speed, and as to the violation of the signal, the victim stated to the effect that the investigative agency and the lower court consistently “a normal U.S. drivered with the U.S. code” was consistent from the investigative agency to the lower court, and the truth response was caused even if based on the result of the inspection of the falsified