교통사고처리특례법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The court below dismissed the appeal on the ground that, in full view of the fact that the victim consistently stated that he violated the signal, the defendant stated that he would know about the violation at the early stage of the accident, the defendant did not know about the violation of signal, and that if the victim did not go through the intersection without an front-time warning, the victim got straight through the intersection when he violated the signal at a strict speed, and that it is difficult to accept it, even though the defendant could recognize that he violated the signal, there was no proof of a crime against the signal, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that there was no evidence of a crime, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion
2. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below and the court below acknowledged all the circumstances specifically stated by the court below. Further to the above circumstances, the defendant first failed to respond to the investigation by the police, see each medical certificate submitted on August 18, 2015 at the court below that the defendant could have known that he would have been aware that he would have been using a false horse detection at the police, and that he would have failed to respond to this investigation, and it would be difficult to say that the defendant could not receive a statement from the defendant at the time of the traffic accident, as the defendant was transferred to the ambulances hospital immediately after the traffic accident, and therefore, the police officer K could not receive a statement from the defendant, and the defendant was "I would know that he would have made a low time accident at the time, and that he would not know that he would have been able to use a low time signal at the time, and that he could not be seen as having different from the defendant's mental condition at the time of the trial."