According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found, based on macrofics, that the defendant's second line of the road crossing at a normal speed of about 60 km as stated in the judgment of the court below, when driving the above crosswalk at a speed of about 60 km from the right side without disregarding the signal on the vehicle, and driving the above crosswalk from the right side to the left side, and the front wheel of the victim's driver's right side, and the above victim's death and the above restricted speed of the road is about 70 km speed. The defendant who is driving with the restricted speed by the above recognized facts, is sufficient to proceed as it is in accordance with the vehicle signal of the signal apparatus, and it is sufficient for the above victim's driver to take the above duty of care to prevent accidents, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to accident, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's duty of care as to accident prevention even if the above vehicle is not found to cross the above road on the right side of the road.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)