The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not operate a vehicle in violation of the signal at the time of the instant accident, and that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence that the victim was directly engaged in at a place where the direct exhaustion is prohibited.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant violated the signal as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below and caused the instant accident due to the negligence of operating the vehicle, and that the victim E suffered the injury.

(1) The defendant stated in the original court that he acknowledges the facts charged.

② The victim C was a green signal at the investigative agency at the time of the instant case. At the time of the instant investigation agency, the victim C driven the vehicle signal, etc. at the direction of the instant case, and at the entrance of the Gu cremation prevention room, he/she is required to drive his/her own vehicle, while driving the vehicle signal, etc. at the direction of the instant vehicle driving.

During the two hospitals room, the victim made a statement to the effect that the instant accident occurred (Evidence Nos. 55). The above statement made by the victim C is credibility in line with the black images that are examined below.

③ According to images recorded on a passenger car boom which had been in the signal atmosphere in the opposite direction of the proceeding of the vehicle in the East Sea, the Defendant was driving on the front side of the blick and the front side of the blurg at the entrance of the blurg at the entrance of the Gu cremation prevention room, in violation of the stop signal.

4. According to the victim C’s statement, the fact that the instant accident occurred while the damaged vehicle was directly in violation of the right of prohibition against direct exhaustion is recognized.

However, the location of the accident in this case is a traffic accident by the defendant who violated the signal even if the damaged vehicle was made a normal round.