The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged even though the Defendant did not violate the signal at the time of the instant traffic accident was erroneous by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant argued to the same effect as the above facts alleged, and the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, reported that the signal, etc. installed in its proceeding direction was changed from red color to green at the time of entering the stop line to the extent of 20 meters from the stop line, and that the Defendant’s vehicle fell at a rapid speed.

In light of the attitude that the content of the statement was specifically, consistent, and clearly memoryed, it is reasonable to deem that the victim’s direction was changed to green signal, so long as the victim’s direction was changed to a red signal, the signal of the Defendant’s direction was changed to a red signal, and ② Defendant entered the Republic of Korea by reporting yellow signal.

In light of the fact that there is a high possibility that a red change was made while entering the Republic of Korea, the Defendant convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case that the Defendant suffered injury, such as “damage to the crocity and strawing,” which requires approximately three weeks of treatment for the victim, by putting the front part of the G-wheeled vehicle by occupational negligence in violation of the signal, in conflict with the left side of the Defendant’s driving vehicle.

If the above evidence is examined closely with the records of this case, it is reasonable for the court below to find the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground of the above circumstances, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.