1. As to the credibility of admissibility of evidence and statement, the lower court determined that: (a) the witness I’s legal statement, the investigation report stating the conversation with witness H, and the results of a false speech detection examination, all of which are not admissible; (b) the victim F’s statement in the court and the investigative agency on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, are likely to believe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the probative value of evidence and evidence or exceeding the bounds of

2. In a case where a public prosecution is instituted by applying Article 3(1) and proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act with regard to the requirements for a judgment dismissing public prosecution, as a result of a trial, if it is impossible to institute a public prosecution on the grounds of the proviso of Article 3(2) or the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

However, in cases where a trial on the substance of a case is completed and it is proved that there is no reason under the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and it is not recognized that the defendant committed an offense under Article 3(1) of the same Act, even if there is a reason under Article 3(2) or the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the same Act, if the fact-finding court rendered a judgment of innocence on the facts charged under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do11431, May 14, 2015). The lower court is the victim who negligently operated a vehicle in violation of traffic signal.