The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of an accident of mistake of facts, 60 “new distance” means only four signal lights, etc., and the Defendant’s moving line cannot be said to have violated the signal, as there is no signal signal on the Defendant’s moving line.

On the contrary, the lower court erred by recognizing the Defendant’s violation of signals.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) The new distance signal system is understood to the purport that (i) the road along the lane in the direction of the defendant's proceeding and the left side of the five-lane road (in the direction of IC to move down on the water surface) should be reported on the same signal (in the direction of 1:0 p.m. on the road in the direction of the defendant's proceeding), and there was a signal indicating the direction of the defendant's proceeding; and (ii) the signs and the right-hand turn-hand turn-on board, stating "in the direction of the vehicle in the direction of the defendant's proceeding" immediately before the passage into the intersection, are installed on the road in the direction of the defendant's proceeding, which can only be turned down immediately and right-hand, and (ii) if the above signal was stopped in violation of the signal and caused the accident, the above signal should have been stopped, and thus, the above signal should have been stopped at the time of the accident.

Even though the defendant was unaware of such signal system, it can be exempted from punishment only in the case where there is a justifiable reason because he falls under the site of law, and it is difficult to view that there is such a reason.

. mistake of facts by the defendant.