This is due to the mistake of the police in traffic management, and the defendant did not have the intent to commit the central crime or had a mistake in a legitimate law, so the defendant is not guilty.

However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the guilty of the facts charged in this case.

A. The section where the Defendant entered the left turn is marked with white domin lines, vehicles on the opposite lane could have a U-turn, and even the left turn was possible.

B. Although there is a prohibition mark on the surface of the road in a section that passed immediately before the defendant makes a left-hand turn, there was no left-hand turn mark.

(c)

Many vehicles are left turn at the section where the defendant has made a left turn.

Judgment

The following reasons (the facts and circumstances are recognized by the evidence duly adopted by the court below). The Defendant, like the facts charged in the instant case, was invaded by the central line, and the Defendant was also intentional.

Since it is reasonable to see that the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case does not err by misapprehending the legal principles.

A. In the section where the defendant left and entered, the median line is marked as a white line. Even if a white line and the opposite lane can be used as a U-turn in accordance with the U-turn sign at the center line of the white domin line, it is the median line in which the defendant intrudes it without any permission marking on his/her own lane.

B. 1 The defendant does not have a mark allowing to turn to the left on the basis of the defendant's vehicle at the section where the defendant left to the left.