The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles or factual errors);

(a) At a point of 50-meter prior to arrival of an independent letter in a resignation tunnel, straight lines and bypass signs are installed, and the two straight lines between two straight lines and two straight lines prior to the right ofpass.

B. The Defendant tried to go straight ahead of the resignation distance in the resignation tunnel and go straight ahead of the independent door, and tried to go to the gold tunnel. However, since the Defendant reached the shooting distance in front of the independent door, only two lanes are showing the right-hand turn on the side of the right-hand side, and it did not indicate the right-hand turn, and turn out to the right-hand side while driving ahead of the gold tunnel in order to go to the right-hand side in the way of turning out again by the right-hand.

C. The point at which the defendant passed is not an intersection, but an independent door is an intersection. Thus, even though there was only an indication of the left-hand turn on the right side of the road before an independent letter, the defendant is not in violation of the intersection method as provided by the Road Traffic Act, so long as the defendant was bypass while driving at the right side of the road at the intersection, the defendant does not violate the intersection method.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty by applying Article 156 and Article 25 (1) of the Road Traffic Act on the ground of the violation of the cross-road traffic method is erroneous in the misconception of facts or misapprehension

2. Around August 6, 2010, the Defendant: (a) around August 18:36, 2010, bypassing the private distance of the independence of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu to a malicious direction from the direction of resignation and tunnel; (b) when intending to turn to the intersection, the driver of any motor vehicle has to turn to the left-hand left-hand way while driving to the right-hand edge of the road in advance.

3. In full view of the evidence in the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant as a whole Articles 156 and 25 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.