2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the yellow light signal under Article 6(2)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act cannot be interpreted to mean that, in the absence of a stop line or crosswalk, should be stopped immediately before the intersection.

In addition to the circumstances stated by the court below, Article 6 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act provides that the signal of red light shall be stopped in the “immediately before the stop line, crosswalk, and intersection crossing,” and explicitly indicate that the signal of yellow light should be stopped immediately before the intersection unlike the contents of the regulations on the signal of yellow light (if there is a stop line or crosswalk, immediately before or after the intersection), and that the signal of yellow light should proceed promptly when a part of the signal of yellow light has already entered the intersection, and does not completely prohibit passage through the intersection in the yellow light. In light of the above, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.