도로교통법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, although the defendant could sufficiently recognize that he driven by violating the signal as stated in the facts charged, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a driver of a passenger car by borrowing B.
On May 14, 2017, the Defendant driven the said vehicle, and around 16:54 on May 14, 2017, the Defendant violated the signal of the head of the office and the head of the office, the head of the office, and the left turn to the left in the direction of the head of the office, in front of the common apartment of the common apartment of the head of the Gu, in front of the common apartment.
B. The lower court determined that: (a) the statement made by C and D by a traffic police officer C and D is the only evidence in the instant case; (b) the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court comprehensively based on the following circumstances, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court, namely, ① not directly witness that the Defendant violated the signal; (c) C controlled the Defendant’s vehicle; and (d) at the same time, D showed the appearance of dispute between the Defendant and the Defendant; and (e) at that time, the signal of the road was changed to the heading, heading, heading, and heading, heading, heading, and heading
As it was thought, C’s statement alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant violated the signal, and ② D, at the time, issued a penalty Stick to detect the preceding vehicle and check whether other vehicles violate the signal at any time, and controlled the Defendant’s vehicle by witnessing to turn to the left in violation of the signal at the port of the front apartment.
On the other hand, it is doubtful that the vehicle discovered by D in violation of traffic laws and regulations around 16-17 on the day of the case is only the vehicle of the defendant and there is doubt about D's credibility of the statement, and ③ if D was in control of the preceding vehicle at the time, the situation of the driving of the defendant's vehicle is divided.