The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act provides that “The types of signals and signals indicated by signal apparatus shall be stopped immediately before a stop line, crosswalk, and intersection: Provided, That vehicles and horses may make a right-hand transit without impeding the traffic flow of other vehicles and horses passing in accordance with signals,” among vehicle signal lights, shall be interpreted to the effect that “of course, vehicles and horses shall stop immediately before a stop line, crosswalk, and intersection: Provided, That in the case of a right-hand transit in four streets, there is no risk of collision with the vehicles running in the same direction due to the lack of the risk of passing the center line; thus, the obligation to drive safely to the extent that it does not interfere with the traffic aspect of the vehicles passing in the same direction shall not be imposed, and the right-hand transit shall be possible.”

Therefore, at the time of the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, the direction of the Defendant’s moving-out without the risk of collision with the vehicle from the red light light of signals, etc. installed on the front side of the water 4-distance flood, at the time of the instant traffic accident, at the time of the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, the direction of the Defendant’s moving-out without the risk of collision with the vehicle installed on the front side of the water 4-distance flood. The direction of the monthly 4-distance (long 4-distance) in which the Defendant actually proceeded, shall be deemed to be “on-way”

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a decision dismissing the prosecution of this case on the ground that the defendant's use of the signals, etc. installed on the front line at a five-distance intersection was caused by the traffic accident, and that the taxi operated by the defendant is affiliated with the Federation of Passenger Transport Business Associations, and thus, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the Road Traffic Act and the Act on Special Cases concerning the Management of Traffic Accidents.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below are examined closely. The court below's reasons are detailed.