A. In light of the fact that the statement of the victim by mistake of fact is inconsistent and the victim is in a position to receive insurance money finally, the victim’s statement cannot be believed as it is, and there is no relation between the defendant’s negligence exceeding the stop line in contravention of the signal and the injury of the victim caused by the instant accident.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one year of suspended sentence in April) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the defendant argued not guilty of the facts charged in this case with the same contents, but the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the grounds as stated in its reasoning and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. In light of the following circumstances, we find that the court below's above determination is legitimate, and there are errors in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below, contrary to what is alleged by the defendant.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

① At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant stopped beyond a stop line in contravention of the signal at the private distance intersection, and the victim was in direct control under his own own own name and was in excess of the road near the Defendant’s earth and sand.

② The victim made a relatively consistent statement in the court of the lower trial that “I am going beyond the stop line on the right side of the vehicle in the direction of its proceeding while passing through the intersection of the private distance under the front line of the front line, and the Defendant’s amback in reporting amback.”