The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there is a fact that the Defendant, by misapprehending the factual mistake or the legal doctrine, has entered the intersection from a narrow road, the width was driven at the time, and the situation of the road with wide width was sufficiently examined and entered.

Therefore, the defendant fulfilled his duty of care, and the accident of this case occurred due to the fault of the victim.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant's vehicle entered the intersection in order to be more than the victim's overland and the defendant's overland conflict with the victim who entered the intersection at the point where most of the cross-road conflict is recognized.

However, in full view of the evidence duly admitted as a result of the examination of evidence, the lane in which the victim was directly involved has not increased the volume of traffic, but the opposite lane of the victim, i.e., the lane in which the defendant was first crossing when entering the intersection, seems to have increased the volume of traffic.

Due to such traffic conditions, the defendant does not seem to have known that the traffic situation of the first crossing is visible when entering the intersection, but whether the victim is directly in the situation of the driver's lane or whether the victim is straight (the victim was in particular in excess of the victim).

In light of all circumstances, such as the situation where the damaged person is going to go through a straight speed signal at the previous intersection, the distance between the previous intersection and the intersection of this case, the shape and the width of the intersection of this case crossing by the defendant, and the estimated speed of the victim and the vehicle of this case and the victim, etc., the defendant is not obliged to exercise the duty of care required under the Road Traffic Act, regardless of the existence or degree of negligence on the part of the victim who last entered the intersection in the accident of this case.