The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the fact that the F’s statement that the Defendant violated the signal given by the Defendant is difficult to be reliable in light of the relationship between the victim and F, and that H, who was on the Defendant’s vehicle, consistently complies with the Defendant’s assertion, the lower court which convicted the Defendant of a violation of the signal at the time of the instant accident, even though the Defendant did not violate the signal, has erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly investigated and adopted by the court below and the court below, i.e., witness F who was on the victim's vehicle entered the victim's vehicle to the intersection of this case, and stated that the victim's vehicle was shocked to the defendant's vehicle going into the intersection of this case, in violation of the signal, as consistent with the investigation agency, and the victim's vehicle entered the intersection of this case, and the driver of the damaged vehicle seems to have actively resisted to the purport that "the defendant would violate the signal" after the accident of this case occurred. ③ The defendant stated to the police officer M who was dispatched to the first accident site "(at the intersection of this case) that "the signal of this case was turned to the left-hand left-hand at the police station," but after being examined at the police station, he did not change the defendant's waiting signal at the intersection of this case to the purport that "at least 30 seconds," and the defendant did not make a statement to the purport that "the defendant was not present at the atmosphere of this case."