The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The accused of the grounds for appeal shall not have violated the signal.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person engaging in driving Cranchis.

On February 6, 2012, the Defendant violated the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, at around 23:55, driven the above vehicle, and proceeded to turn to the left at the seat of Seoul, from the inner side of the so-called 38 national road.

The location had a duty of care to drive safely according to good faith to a person engaged in driving service at a place where a signal, etc. is installed.

Nevertheless, there is an occupational negligence that the defendant violated the signal and proceeded to turn to the left.

At that time, the driver's vehicle volume of the victim D(55 years old) driver's vehicle was contacted with the driver's vehicle by the defendant's driver's vehicle in the victim D(55 years old) who is proceeding directly to the normal signal from the right side of the door door door to the direction of the driver's vehicle.

As a result, the Defendant suffered, by its occupational negligence, the injury to the affected vehicle driver D in light of knee, knee in light of knee, knee in light of knee, etc. which requires treatment for about two weeks, from the same damaged vehicle driver F (26 years of age), the injury to the same damaged vehicle passenger G (V, 51 years of age) that requires treatment for about three weeks, and the injury to the knee in light of knee in light of knee in light of knee, etc. which requires treatment for about two weeks to the same damaged vehicle driver H (86 years of age), and the injury to the Defendant driver I (V, 54 years of age) in light of the fact that the Defendant sustained about two weeks of kne in light of knee in light of knee in light of knee, etc. requiring treatment for about two weeks.

B. Ultimately, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act, which caused the above occupational negligence, destroyed the ED car volume to approximately KRW 1,433,000, which is the damaged vehicle.

3. The key issue of the instant case is whether or not the Defendant violated the signal signals, and the victim D's investigative agency and the lower court's judgment are admissible as evidence corresponding thereto.