A. The Defendant did not have passed the stop line when the vehicle signal, etc. at the time of the instant case was red.

In addition, the defendant did not shock the part of the victim's left-hand side, while he shocked the part of the victim's hand by the vehicle.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the amount of KRW 700,000) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of fact, the Defendant, as stated in the judgment below, brought up the victim’s left-hand side on the front right of the vehicle after passing through the stop line when the vehicle signal, etc. was red light.

The decision is judged.

① In light of the fact that the vehicle signal, etc. of the Defendant was changed from green to yellow at least eight seconds before the vehicle reaches the stop line, and that the yellow signal, etc. of the above vehicle is four seconds in length during the signal cycle of the signal signal, the vehicle signal, etc. of the Defendant vehicle, as indicated at the time when the vehicle passes the front stop line of the crosswalk, may be deemed to have been changed to red light.

② The Defendant’s vehicle driven ahead of it along the left side of the vehicle was stopped near the stop line at the time when the Defendant’s vehicle passes through the stop line.

(3) The diagnosis of a victim shall be consistent with the part of the injury committed in the judgment of the victim.

On the other hand, the defendant stated in the police that the vehicle was faced with the victim.

(4) A vehicle that has a substantial heavy sound when the vehicle of the defendant is shocked to the victim.

B. The most favorable circumstance is that the victim’s damage to the determination of unfair sentencing has been considerably recovered.

However, even though the fact of the violation of signal was clearly seen as the result of the examination of evidence, the defendant did not reflect his mistake at all even after the fact was raised, and rather, the victim argued as a disguised one.