On the other hand, the defendant asserts that, at the time, the vehicle traffic signal in the intersection is already passing through the stop line of the intersection, when the yellow signal is changed from green to yellow signal, it is not a violation of the signal.

In the instant case, evidence of the police officer’s testimony as to the Defendant’s signal breach facts is the sole evidence of the police officer of the control police officer. However, in the instant case where there is no objective data such as CCTV at the scene, images of the Defendant’s vehicle, or motion picture images of other vehicles, etc., it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant committed the signal violation as indicated in the facts charged by the control police officer solely based on the statement of the control police officer in the instant case (such as the statement of the control police officer, if the relevant site is frequently in place where the signal violation occurred and the site is located to prevent the controversy over whether the signal violation occurred, it seems necessary to prepare objective documentary evidence in advance to prevent the occurrence of controversy over the crime). Ultimately, the facts charged in the instant case constitutes lack of evidence of the crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is to be rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.