The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant reported to the left-hand turn signal, and the victim violated the signal and caused the instant accident.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the argument of mistake of facts. Considering the difference between the method of evaluating credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court in accordance with the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the first instance court's judgment on the sole ground that the first instance court's judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, or in exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court's judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance is considerably unfair in full view of the results of the first instance court's examination and the results of additional examination of evidence conducted by the time the appellate court concluded that the first instance court's judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court's judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do12112 Decided August 20, 2009, etc.). Although the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, the lower court acknowledged the Defendant as guilty of the facts charged in the instant case by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court held the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. As to the Defendant’s allegation, “Judgment on the Defendant and