The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. In light of the fact that the error of the victim by mistake of fact and the vehicle of the defendant conflict with the opposite side, there is a negligence of left-hand turn against the defendant's signal.

Even if the victim invadeds the central line, it is the cause of the accident of this case. Thus, there is no relation between the defendant's negligence in violation of the signal and the accident of this case.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of eight million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s turn to the left at the 2nd line of the room of the south side of the new history distance at the Seoul University, in violation of the signal at the 2nd line of the south side of the new history distance, and the left turn to the left at the erode of the victim’s driving who left the left at the erode distance from the boundary of the new history distance at the Seoul University at the Seoul University, and the collision point is recognized as having been above the crosswalk on the vehicle line where the Defendant left the left.

However, the evidence or evidence presented by the defendant or his defense counsel and the above evidence alone do not intend to turn to the left, but they obstructed the center line in the form of passing the crosswalk, which is the place of the collision, in the direction of the right angle.

It is insufficient to recognize.

Even if the injured party commits an offense in the form of passing along the crosswalk in the direction of a large line.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that if the defendant did not make a left-hand turn in violation of the signal, he would not have any conflict with the victim's driver's Obane (the defendant also recognized that the accident of this case did not occur in the absence of the defendant's signal at the time of investigation by the prosecutor, the investigation record 99 pages), and that the defendant violated the signal.