At around 21:10 on September 13, 2012, the Defendant proceeded with a road of one-lane E in front of the city of macroscopon, and made a left turn at an irregular speed from the side of reclaimed land to the side of the land.

Since there is a crosswalk where a signal, etc. is installed, it was confirmed whether a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to safely drive according to the new subparagraph after checking whether there is a person who will cut the way by reducing the speed and by properly examining the right and the right of the road.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to turn to the left by violating the signal, and caused the conflict between the left side of the victim F (58 years old) who crosses the crosswalk to the right side of the victim F (58 years old) who crosses the crosswalk to the new line.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim F by occupational negligence, such as salt, tension, etc. in need of treatment for about three weeks.

2. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, caused an accident on the crosswalk installed on the fifth line road along the right-hand left-hand turn without permission, in violation of the signal, or whether the victim was involved in an accident while crossinging the second line road without permission in violation of the signal.

As a result of the defendant's violation of signal, evidence that corresponds to the facts charged that the victim shocks in the crosswalk exists, such as the victim's witness F's testimony and F's statement.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by this court, namely, ① at the time, a large number of bits are at night, and the victim seems to have not been able to secure a view compared to the ordinary gate because he was walking in the aftermath of his head, and ② a large number of bits are set back at night.