The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The defendant's summary of the grounds for appeal caused a traffic accident in violation of the signal, and thus, the court below's dismissal of prosecution is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that: (a) although it is recognized that the victim was waiting at the police station, the victim confirmed that his driving signal was replaced by a direct cross-section signal; (b) and that the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked by the opposite on the road during his attempt of U.S., the lower court stated that “F, while waiting for the signal at the time of the signal, did not go beyond the victim’s right-hand signal to the left-hand signal, was sent to the front part of his own vehicle and another vehicle in front of his own vehicle, and that “F, while waiting for the signal at the time of the signal, did not go beyond the front part of the traffic signal at the time of the accident, was in conformity with the direction of the victim’s direct cross-section signal at the time of the accident.” (However, the traffic signal system at the point where the F and the victim were waiting for the signal at the time of the accident was in front of his own vehicle and the front part of the traffic signal at the time of the accident.”