The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the gist of the grounds for appeal did not contain a violation of signal signal, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) victim D, consistent at police and court of the court below, and consistent with the victim D's direction signal, etc., and stated that the defendant's vehicle was shocked in violation of the signal, and (ii) witness F stated that the police and court of the court of the court below committed the signal violation. It is true that part of the F's police and court of the court below's statements (such as F's location of the signal, etc. at the court of the court of the court below, whether F is the direction of the defendant's proceeding, or whether F is the direction of the victim's proceeding, etc.) are inconsistent. However, F is an objective witness who found the police witness to find the witness of the accident of this case as the witness of the accident of this case, and at least that the defendant's vehicle is reliable in the above statement, and considering the fact that the defendant's vehicle was contacted after the accident of this case, and that the defendant's employee sent to the accident scene of this case to the defendant's insurance company.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.