Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the premise that the Defendant entered the intersection with red or yellow signal even though the Defendant reported the front straight line signal at the time of the instant accident, and was in direct control pursuant to new signals. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaging in driving a C-U.S. car.
On October 21, 2013, the Defendant driven the above car at a speed of about 60km per hour from the 21:45 on October 10, 2013 to the 3-distance intersection in front of the Ecrypt D located in the Ecrypt in the ecryp.
Since there is a three-distance intersection where signal lights are installed, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to live well on the right and the right and the right, and to drive safely in accordance with the signals.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and neglected to turn to the left at one-lane from the occupational negligence of the victim F (72 years old, South) who would turn to the left normally by receiving the left-hand turn at one-lane of the opposite contractual negligence while violating the signal while leaving the stop signal, and received the front part of the driver’s seat on the side of the driver’s seat of the Defendant’s vehicle.
The Defendant suffered injury to the victim and the victim H (the age of 66, female) who was on board the victim’s vehicle due to the foregoing accident, for about three weeks of medical treatment.
B. The Defendant asserted that he had consistently entered the intersection from the investigative agency to the trial court, and did not violate the signal at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident. As such, the Defendant asserted that he had not entered the intersection normally according to the direct progress signal at the time of the instant accident. Thus, the Defendant’s evidence proving that the Defendant violated the signal is in accordance with the victim F, H’s investigative agency, and the court below’s trial.