The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not violate the signal, since he/she did not know the fact that he/she did not go to the right or left turn at the same time.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in finding guilty by reliance on the statement of a traffic control police officer who lacks credibility.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is not deemed to be significantly unfair in light of the first instance court’s results of evidence examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should respect

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7917 Decided January 30, 2009). B.

According to the legal statement, control manual, photograph, investigation report (signaling on signal), the lower court determined that the Defendant violated the direct driving signal prohibited by U-turn at the time and place indicated in the judgment, and that “the fact that the U-turn was sufficiently recognized.”

For reference, the "whether the control police officer," one of the circumstances pointing out the credibility of the statement of the control police officer, has already been pointed out in the court below.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the judgment of the court below is maintained as to the credibility of the statement by the traffic policemen.