The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Costs of trial in the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On February 11, 2018, the Defendant, while driving at B C on the top of B C and making a left-hand turn on the front of D in front of C in Gangdong-gu Seoul to the high-line airspace from E-sections, the Defendant claimed that the victim is the victim. F, (1) a stop line violation, (2) a stop line violation, (3) a crosswalk violation, and (4) a violation of the duty of safety driving due to the Defendant’s negligence, was received on the left-hand side of the G Poter Cargo of F, which the Defendant claimed that the said pool car driven is the victim, and does not conflict between the Defendant’s driver’s driver’s foregoing pole car and the F Poter freight.

B. The F is not injured.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the allegation that the above accident occurred due to the negligence of the above F, and that there was no negligence of the defendant, the above F is waiting for the vehicle driving at the front of the above D (D) intersection on February 11, 2018, and the signal of the lane was changed to the driving signal. The defendant started to turn to the left at the left in violation of the new subparagraph, and the left part of the above G Poter's left part was taken by the front side of the defendant's vehicle, and the front part of the above G Poter's left part of the vehicle was taken by the defendant's front part of the vehicle running behind the above F Poter's vehicle, as stated in the facts charged, and in such case, the defendant is sufficiently recognized as having violated the duty of due care of the victim for the traffic signal, such as reducing the speed of the vehicle's vehicle and checking whether the vehicle passed behind the front and rear side of the vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion on this is not accepted.

(b).