The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant confirmed that there was no vehicle in progress by examining the left and right of the road that was trying to enter at the time of the instant case.

The instant accident did not occur due to the Defendant’s negligence.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year of imprisonment without prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the duly admitted and investigated evidence, the instant accident appears to have occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant, who did not enter the road, after checking the right and the right of the front and the right of the front and the right of the front and the right.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the

① According to the main images from the time before the instant accident occurred to the time the instant accident occurred, the victim’s vehicle was in operation at normal speed.

② The Defendant asserts that, from the lower court to the lower court’s trial, one truck cost runs from the opposite direction of the road where he/she was about to enter, the Defendant re-examines the left and right after the passage of the truck, and then, after checking the absence of a vehicle on both directions, the Defendant entered the road.

However, considering the above black image, a white truck 1 is merely a road opposite to the "D" signboard, which is the site of the accident in this case, and immediately after that, the Track that the defendant operated entered the front of the victim's vehicle (00:29 points).

The Defendant’s assertion that the above truck was inspected once again after the passage is difficult to believe that it does not fit the Defendant’s vehicle’s driving mode on the video.

(3)