The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. In full view of the statements of witnesses in the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the grounds that the defendant could not recognize the fact that he violated the signal.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) the Defendant was a person engaged in driving the C pressle van; (b) on August 16, 201, the Defendant driven the said mix with the said mix on the 10:45, while proceeding from the original station to the maid station, while proceeding to the maid station, in order to turn to the maid station; and (c) at the same time, the Defendant took a signal at one-lane of the six-lanes among the six-lanes, to turn to the original station; (d) in such cases, the Defendant was at the intersection where the signal, etc. was installed, and (e) was at the same time engaged in driving along the traffic signal, and (e) the Defendant was at the duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident by driving the said maid line with the traffic signal, and (e) the Defendant suffered the injury of the victim, such as the victim’s mar and the mar of the said maid to the original station.

B. The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the purport that the statement by the victim or witness alone is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s violation of the signal.

3. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant consistently confirmed that the vehicle progress signal in the atmosphere from the police to the left-hand turn signal available for a U-turn, and denied the fact of violating the signal, if a U-turn was made.

According to the records, the following circumstances are recognized:

(1)