The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not constitute a violation of signal since the Defendant passed a stop line to the left, and there was an error of misconception of facts that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged due to erroneous reading of CCTV video images.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court fully recognizes the Defendant’s violation of the signal by passing through the yellow light stop line.

On the other hand, the left-hand turn signal at the crosssection of the triang road of this case continues to be maintained for 16 seconds. According to CCTV image, the vehicles in the vehicle moving along the Defendant began to make a left-hand turn at the right-hand turn at the right-hand 12 seconds from the beginning of the video. The vehicles operated by the Defendant passed the stop line at the right-hand 34 seconds of 6 minutes and stopped on the crosswalk.

나. 피고인이 운행하던 차량 바로 앞에 있던 검정색 승용차는 별다른 교통 장애가 없음에도 잠시 멈칫하였다가 진행하였다.

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

[On the other hand, the defendant is the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

According to Article 361-3, the appellant shall submit the statement of grounds for appeal within 20 days and the other party shall submit the statement of grounds for appeal within 10 days, and the prosecutor shall not submit the written answer within 10 days so that the prosecutor has failed to submit the written answer. Although the prosecutor is found to have failed to submit the written answer within 10 days, the prosecutor shall not interpret that the scope of the appellate court’s trial (Article 364(1) of the Act) is not effective, unlike the statement of grounds for appeal (Article 361-4 of the Act), and that the written answer shall not be interpreted as a duty to submit the other party’s written answer.

Therefore, it is difficult to view only the submission of a written reply by the prosecutor as a ground for dismissing the public prosecution under each subparagraph of Article 328 of the Act, and it is possible to dismiss the public prosecution differently.