The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. In full view of the statements of victims and witnesses of the grounds for appeal, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the grounds that the defendant cannot recognize the fact that he violated the signal even if the defendant violated the signal, there is an error of mistake of facts.

2. The summary of the facts charged is a driver of Oralba at C125 cc.

On May 25, 2011, the Defendant driven the above Oralb in the KTex distance south-dong, South and North Korea, in order to drive the said Oralb, and driven the three-lane of the three-lane road (including the two-lanes) in the vicinity of the chamber of commerce and industry in the direction of the central border.

The driver of any motor vehicle in a private distance intersection where signal lights are installed has a duty of care to drive the motor vehicle slowly at the intersection where signal lights are installed and to drive the motor vehicle safely according to its signals.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and caused the victim D (the 34 years old) driver D (the driver of the injured vehicle) to suffer a scarbling room in the left-hand side of the driver of the injured vehicle requiring approximately two weeks of medical treatment, due to the shock of the victim D (the driver of the injured vehicle)'s left-hand side in front of the left-hand side of the driver's vehicle's e-fababa in the drive of the victim D (the 34 years old) who is under normal direct control from the right-hand side of the moving direction as it is, and the victim F (the 39 years old) who is the same passenger.

3. Determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion does not mean that the Defendant violated the signal, but instead, the victim D was changed to a stop signal in the direction of the proceeding, and even if the direct coordinate signal in the direction of the Defendant was included, he was driving a sloping flag, resulting in an accident that leads to a shock of the Defendant’s driving of the sular part.

B. The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court as to the grounds for appeal.