The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable to punish the Defendant as a breach of duty to drive safety, by examining whether the Defendant violated the signal even though the Defendant made a bypass in green signals.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case even though the defendant could not be the perpetrator of the accident, which is not the Oralone that proceeded in violation of the signal, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

Judgment

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person engaging in driving a shower car.

On June 14, 2016, the Defendant driven the above car at around 10:00, and moved to the direction of the university in accordance with three-lanes of the way in which the crossing of the beneficiary in front of the bank in front of the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, would turn to the direction of the university, along the three-lanes of the way in which the crossing of the beneficiary in front of the bank is crossing from the south south to the intersection.

Since there are frequent vehicles, in such a case, the Defendant, who is engaged in driving of a motor vehicle, shall not drive the motor vehicle at such a speed or in such a manner as to cause danger and harm to others according to road traffic conditions and the structure and performance of the motor vehicle by accurately manipulating the steering direction, brakes, etc. of the motor vehicle while driving the motor vehicle on the right side and checking the safety distance, but the Defendant shall not drive the motor vehicle at such a speed or in such a manner as to interfere with others.

D(70) Driving E, U.S. 249CC, which violated the duty of safety driving by bypassing the D(70) driving without properly examining the coming from 249CC.

B. According to each evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, and in particular, each video CD, it can be confirmed that Defendant’s vehicle has changed the direction signal to red without entering the intersection, so the Defendant’s vehicle does not stop as it is or by examining the flow of the vehicle on the left side of the direction direction.