The defendant did not violate the signal, and the court below's punishment is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion that the defendant did not violate the signal signal, the fact that the vehicle operated by the defendant was in control of the unmanned signal violation control equipment due to the temporary light signal violation stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, the above unmanned signal violation control equipment operated normally as the result of the examination by the Road Traffic Authority around September 7, 2017, and the signal control error rate is 0%.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant violated the signal as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since there is no ground for appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition.