The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The instant traffic accident by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is caused by the victim’s drinking driving act, and it does not directly cause the Defendant’s violation of signals.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (1) Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act provides that “A vehicle or horse shall stop immediately before or after a stop line exists or a crosswalk exists, and shall proceed promptly when entering the intersection.” 2. Vehicle or horse may make a bypass and, in the event of a bypassing, it shall not interfere with a pedestrian crossing.” According to the above provision, in a case where a vehicle has been changed to a yellow light before entering the intersection, the vehicle must stop immediately before the stop line or the intersection and the driver of the vehicle may choose whether to stop or proceed with the intersection.”

Article 3(2)1 and Article 4(1)1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3657, Jul. 27, 2006). Meanwhile, in the case of operating a vehicle in violation of the signals by signal apparatus, a public prosecution may be instituted even in the case of purchasing an insurance or mutual aid under Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning

(2) The term "in the case of operating a vehicle in violation of signals by signal apparatus" means the case where a violation of signals directly causes the occurrence of a traffic accident.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do17117 Decided March 15, 2012). Examining the evidence of this case in light of the aforementioned legal principles, closely comparing the record and examination of the evidence, the lower court’s judgment on the “judgment”, the Defendant, and the defense counsel’s assertion, with detailed reasons therefor.