The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Even though the lower court rejected the allegation of innocence, such as denying proximate causal relation, the Defendant, without reason, did not state the judgment on the acquittal.

The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principle.

B. Although there is no proximate causal relation between the Defendant’s mistake in violation of the signal signal and the instant accident, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty was erroneous in misconception of facts or in violation of the rules of evidence.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. When a sentence is rendered under the Criminal Procedure Act to determine non-performance of reason, it is sufficient to specify the facts to be committed in the reason of the judgment, the summary of evidence, and the application of statutes (Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, where there is “a statement of facts that are the reason why the establishment of a crime is excluded, or that are the reason why the punishment is aggravated or mitigated,” the judgment should be clearly stated (Article 323(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. In the event such a judgment is omitted, it constitutes “when the reason for appeal is not attached” and thus,

On the contrary, if the defendant's assertion constitutes a simple denial of the elements of a crime, it cannot be said that there is an error of lack of reason even if the reasons for rejection are not specified in the judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do293 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.). When the lower court sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 700,000,00, the lower court specified the “criminal facts”, “a summary of evidence”, and “application of statutes” in the judgment, and the Defendant’s assertion of “a denial of a causal relationship, etc.” in the lower judgment is merely a mere denial of the constituent elements, and it cannot be said that the Defendant’s assertion of “a denial of a causal relationship, etc.,” which

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Determination of misconception of facts, etc. (1) Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents