The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. On February 14, 2016, the Defendant: (a) was a person engaging in driving of Dunst Motor Vehicle; and (b) was driving the said motor vehicle around February 21, 2013; (c) was driving the said motor vehicle at the speed of the U.S. drive the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-ro 6 foot-ro Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, at the direction of the art center, one lane between four lanes in the direction of the Seoul Arts Center.

Since a signal, etc. has been installed, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance due to the safe driving of the vehicle in accordance with the signals, but the Defendant neglected to do so and neglected to do so, but neglected to do so and neglected to pass through the intersection to the stop signal prior to entering the intersection, and caused the red signal on the opposite directionton road by the negligence passing through the intersection, and received the part on the right side side part of the FST5 car driven by the victim E (the age of 38) as the front part of the Defendant’s driving.

The Defendant, by such occupational negligence, suffered from the injury of the victim E, such as dump of a fluoral dynasium in need of approximately two weeks of medical treatment, and the injury of the victim G (M5) who is a passenger of the said SM5 car, including three fys fys, which require approximately 6 weeks of medical treatment.

B. In light of the following, the lower court’s judgment, based on the premise that it is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s violation of signal, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, is an offense falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and where the instant traffic accident occurred without any reason under Article 3(2)1 of the same Act and Article 4(1) of the same Act and the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the same Act, if the vehicle that caused the traffic accident is covered by insurance, etc., the lower court cannot institute a public prosecution. The Defendant’s vehicle is covered by the comprehensive automobile insurance and thus the instant public prosecution is null and void.