The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) did not constitute a violation of signal at the time of the instant traffic accident, and the said accident was rather caused by the truck driver E.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the premise that the traffic accident of this case occurred by negligence of the defendant's violation of signal signal, is erroneous and adversely affected by the

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a dump truck driver.

On 13:10 on 28, 2014, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 13:10, and driven the D private distance in Daegu-gu, Daegu-based, from the head of Si/Gun to the head of Si/Gun, at about 50-60km each hour, depending on two lanes.

Since there is a cross-section where signal lights are installed, there was a duty of care to reduce speed and prevent accidents by driving safely according to signals.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeds at the same speed in violation of the signal, and caused the collision between the part on the right side of the f25 tons of the f.25 tons of the f.25 tons of the f.25 tons of the f.25 tons of the f.25 tons of the f. of the f. of the f. of the f. of the f. of the f. of the f. of the f. of the f. of the f. of the f. of the f. of the f. of the f. of the f. of the f. of the f. of the f. of the f. of the

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered, by the above occupational negligence, salt ties and tensions, etc. in cases where approximately two weeks of treatment is required to the victims I (at the age of 38) who moved in the Kraca car, and the same J (at the age of 64) for about two weeks of treatment.

B. The lower court’s determination is as follows: (a) A car with Tea is a car.