The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the intersection in the direction of the Defendant’s driving at the time of the instant case did not have a sign of speed regulation at the speed of 50 km every time of the restriction speed.

Nevertheless, under the premise that the above speed regulation sign was installed, the lower court: (a) driving by the Defendant exceeding 20km as stipulated in Article 3(2) proviso 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents; (b)

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

The assertion that joint Defendant B, who is the other party driver, made a left turn at the right straight line at the time of the instant case (Article 1-3(3) of the Reasons for Appeal of February 20, 2017) cannot be treated as a misunderstanding of facts as the ground for appeal in its nature, and thus, it is deemed as being included in the unfair argument for sentencing.

2. Reviewing the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts, Article 17(1) of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 19(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act provides that the traffic speed of motor vehicles on the two-lane or more roads, such as the intersection as in the holding of the lower judgment, shall be within 80 kilometers every hour.

Therefore, a special speed regulation sign, etc. should be installed in order to define the speed limit lower than that in the above general roads.

In addition, this signboard is not only required to be a location that can be seen by a driver as a person who is subject to speed regulations.

In doing so, when using the CD reproduction result of the trial court at the trial court, it can be known that the speed control sign (the lower part of the investigation record 42) at a speed of 50 km at each time of the limit that is seen as evidence for the part exceeding the restricted speed driving (the lower part of the investigation record) was installed in the opposite direction to the Defendant’s operation among the intersections as stated in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the speed control sign at the above speed control is regulating the speed of the vehicles in the direction in which the Defendant’s vehicle is driving.