The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The judgment of the court below which dismissed the public prosecution of this case by finding that the defendant did not violate the signal even though the defendant violated the signal, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The Defendant in the instant charges is a person engaging in driving a rocketing car.

On October 6, 2011, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 10:20 on October 6, 201, and proceeded with the intersection in front of the Jinyang shopping in the Northern-dong, Busan.

At the time of the intersection where a signal is installed, the signal was in a state of red signal with the signal apparatus. In such a case, there was a duty of care to safely stop to a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle until the signal is transmitted to the signal apparatus.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and took part of the victim E-driving FK5 car’s left turn to the left from the air of the Gu-nam Elementary School due to the occupational negligence in violation of the signal and received the front part of the above rocketing car.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as fluoral salt, which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment, due to such occupational negligence.

B. On the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the credibility of the victim E and witness G's statement to the effect that the defendant violated the signal for the following reasons, and dismissed the prosecution of this case.

The summary of the judgment of the court below is that the defendant, in this case, entered the investigative agency to the normal signal at the time of the accident, and therefore, he did not violate the signal. Thus, E and G are admitted as evidence consistent with the above facts charged.