1. Examining the trial evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below in comparison with records, the court below's decision that recognized the criminal facts in the judgment of the defendant is justifiable, and there is no error of misconception of facts or incomplete hearing due to a violation of the rules of evidence such

2. According to the provisions of Articles 24 and 25 of the Road Traffic Act, the first right of way and speed limitation of emergency motor vehicles, and the application of prohibition of passing is limited to each special exception, and there is no special exception to the prohibition of intrusion by the installed line, such as the central line, etc. as provided in Articles 11-2 and 14 of the same Act, or the exclusion of the prohibition of turning back. Therefore, even in the case of emergency motor vehicles, the emergency motor vehicles are subject to the application of Articles 11-2 and 14 of the same Act, as in the case of the following, when the emergency motor vehicles ske the installed line of the central line, etc., or turn back the speed prohibition section. Therefore, the judgment below convicting the defendant is just and there is no violation of the misapprehension of legal principles as to the privilege of emergency motor vehicles.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)