The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant was proceeding in accordance with the progress signal, there was no negligence of violating the signal, and considering the damaged parts and degree of each vehicle due to the instant traffic accident, the speed of each vehicle at the time of shock, etc., the victim appears to have not been located in the upper part due to the instant accident, but the lower court which recognized the facts charged in the instant case and convicted the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to whether the Defendant violated the signal, namely, ① the point at which the instant accident occurred in the Macheon-dong, Gwangju. On October 25, 2012, the Defendant was driving a car at C SM520 and proceeded one-lane to the left-hand distance from the efrad car to the efrad car, and the victim D was driving the Efrad car to the left-hand left-hand turn at the later end of the efrad car, and the left-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand, and the victim did not stop the vehicle at the police and the court below because the Defendant did not stop to the left-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-out, and then the victim did not stop the vehicle at the police and the intersection, and then the Defendant did not stop the vehicle after the left-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-out.

‘The statement was made’.

I tried to find out the difference of the defendant only after shock.

(j)in-house;