The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not violate the signal, and the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant was in violation of the signal at the time of the accident can be sufficiently recognized.

1) The instant accident is a shooting range where signal, etc. is installed, and the Defendant’s vehicle is under direct control from the erode of Jin-Eup at the southyang-si, to the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, while the victim’s vehicle is under direct control from the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, and is a collision with the front side of the victim’s vehicle in front of the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle. 2) The victim, from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below, “in the course of the instant traffic signal at the instant intersection, while checking the fact that the direct margin signal turn, and then the signal turn off the intersection, the victim’s statement and the victim’s vehicle are shocked at the rapid speed of the Defendant’s vehicle and the victim’s vehicle shocked at the intersection. At the time of the instant intersection at that time, sound was sounded in a lush direction at the point of view, and thus, the victim’s statement and statement are in accord with the victim’s statement and statement.

3) In addition, the victim stated that “after the accident, the Defendant was “I do not have a warning signal,” and the victim stated that “I would have made the above talks with the Defendant while waiting for a towing vehicle after a towing vehicle.” According to the investigation report prepared by I by the victim 12, the Defendant was sent to I, according to the investigation report prepared by I by the victim 1.