The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles are provided to the public in the crosswalk, which is the place where the instant accident occurred, a vehicle signal, etc., and the above signal, etc. is merely a vehicle that can see the above signal prior to the entrance into the intersection, and it is not a signal for the vehicle that would sound the said signal only after left- or right-hand.

Therefore, the defendant's vehicle that leads to the above signal bypassing the intersection does not have a duty to follow the above signal. Thus, even if the defendant proceeded with the red signal of the above signal, it is not a violation of the signal.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one million won penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person engaging in driving CK5 taxis.

The Defendant, at around 15:10 on May 10, 2017, driven the above taxi and stated in the facts charged of this case, No. 483, as in the Seogu Incheon Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Incheon, as “No. 48, as in the Yellow Sea,” but appears to be a clerical error.

Since the crosswalks in front of the Dong-dong community service center were driven along the fourth-lanes from the direction of the new interest line to the direction of the new interest line, and the signal lights are installed, the defendant engaged in driving service has a duty of care to safely drive the crosswalk in accordance with the new subparagraph by making the front side and the left side well.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and did not stop on the front line of the crosswalk while the vehicle signal is red, and instead did not stop on the front line of the crosswalk, and received the victim D (56) crossing the bicycle from the right side of the direction of the road to the left side of the crosswalk as the front part of the said taxi.

As a result, the Defendant caused the victim’s injury to the left-hand slots that need approximately three weeks of medical treatment due to the above occupational negligence.

B. The lower court’s judgment.