The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person driving a Grandland car as a duty.

On March 29, 2013, the Defendant driven the above vehicle around 06:10 on 06:10, and proceeded at a speed of about 70 km from the right edge to the luminous terminal from the right edge of Gwangju Seo-gu.

It is an intersection where signal lights are installed at the front of that place.

In such cases, the driver of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to check whether there is a motor vehicle through the intersection by reducing speed and checking the side well, and to prevent accidents by driving safely according to the traffic signal in advance.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and continues to proceed at the same speed due to a violation of the signal even though the signal was a stop signal.

From the left side of the proceeding direction to the right side of the victim D(the age of 43) driven by the victim D(the age of 43) who has left the intersection in accordance with the new code, the part of the E-car in front of the right side of the vehicle of the defendant

The defendant suffered from the victim D's negligence in the course of these business to the injured party D about two weeks of cryp and the crypum cryp dumumumums.

2. As to the facts charged in this case, the defendant himself did not violate the signal, and the victim did not recognize that the signal system of the intersection in this case was changed from the “sular seat” to the “sular seat,” and did not recognize that the signal system of the intersection in this case was changed to the “sular seat,” the defendant asserts to the effect that the accident occurred by making a left turn.

3. Determination

A. The Defendant and the victim violated the signal at the scene of the accident immediately after an objective direct evidence (such as black stuff images installed in the control equipment camera images or vehicles, or a CCTV images installed in the surrounding CCTV or witness’s statement, etc.) or indirect circumstantial evidence that could recognize who violated the signal among the Defendant and the victim.