The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, at the time and place indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, changed the lane from the two lanes to the one lane, and the damaged vehicle that was driven in the straight direction along the one lane in the rear direction, was shocked by the Defendant at the time and place indicated in the instant facts charged. The Defendant still driven a U.S. vehicle.

As it cannot be seen, it shall not be deemed that an accident occurred during the process in violation of the direct dust signal of the front bank.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Where a signal device emitted only from a chemical, such as green, yellow, red, etc., is installed and there is no other sign allowing to make a non-protective left- or U-turn, the following math or U-turn shall not, in principle, be allowed;

In light of the above legal principles, if signal apparatus such as crossing-type three-lanes are installed and the left-hand turn turn is carried out in the road without a green, it is reasonable to view that the defendant is responsible for violating the signal system to the front side of the same direction as well as the opposite direction (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5848, Jul. 28, 2005). In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below: ① the place indicated in the facts charged in this case is installed in the front side of the two-lane road, and the light and crosswalk are installed in the front side of the road, and the U-turn prohibition sign is installed; ② the defendant reported red signal along the two-lane of the above road and stopped the vehicle in front of the crosswalk; ③ However, the defendant moved the vehicle from the two-lane road to the front side of the road to use the green signal.