The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the lower court determined that the Defendant suffered injury by shocking the victim’s signal in contravention of the signal (hereinafter “instant accident”) on the premise that, at the time when the Defendant entered the crosswalk (hereinafter “instant crosswalk”) to which the Defendant was crossinged by the victim, the Defendant had already entered the crosswalk (hereinafter “instant crosswalk”) and that at least a yellow signal was a red signal or at least a yellow signal in the direction of the Defendant’s proceeding.

However, the victim confirmed the suspension of the reference vehicle and changed to approximately one to two seconds, and the location of the accident in this case has four lanes from the victim's point of view, so the victim seems to have reached approximately one to two seconds from the victim's point of view.

On the other hand, the suspension line of the Defendant’s running direction and the crosswalk of this case are far away from 25 meters, and the Defendant’s vehicle runs at approximately 30km/h speed, and the Defendant’s vehicle reached the crosswalk within about 3 to 4 seconds from the stop line.

may be seen.

In this sense, as at the time when the driving signal of the vehicle is changed to yellow, at least the front wheels of the Defendant’s vehicle was exceeded (hereinafter “instant stop line”), it is reasonable to expect the Defendant’s vehicle to stop the same as the standard vehicle, and rather to expect the rapid progress.

In addition, in light of related CCTV images, it can be seen that the victim clearly violated the pedestrian signal and entered the crosswalk of this case.

Therefore, the defendant violated the signal and caused the accident of this case.

Although it cannot be seen, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous or erroneous, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.