The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as stated in the instant facts charged, did not have committed a violation of signal as indicated in the instant facts charged.

Rather, the left turn to the left turn from the front left door of the household at the front left door of the household was a traffic accident from the injured party while making a left turn to the left.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant, as indicated in the instant facts charged, is sufficiently found to have been by a direct fault in violation of the red signals signals, when the Defendant proceeds from the road 70th page to the alley of a household as indicated in the instant facts charged.

Therefore, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① The victim was present as a witness in the court of the court below, and stated that “ himself was in violation of the suspension signal while proceeding the distance from the surface of an underground roadway with a flow-off distance in front of the flow-off distance. The Defendant was driving on the 70th road surface to the alley of a household with a stop signal, and the instant traffic accident occurred while driving on the ground of a stop signal.”

The above statements made by the victim are consistent, specific, and not consistent with the rule of experience from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below, and they are credibility because they cannot be found.

② In addition, according to CCTV images near the main four-distance intersection in which the instant traffic accident occurred, the fact that the Defendant driven a dub and proceeded directly from the surface of the road 70 times to the alley of a household.

(3) At the time.