The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact that the defendant was in violation of the vehicle stop signal at the time of mistake of facts is true, but this does not constitute a violation of the signal, since it was based on the reception of the police officer.

B. The chief of police station in the form of a misapprehension of the legal principle requested a summary judgment under Article 165(1) of the Road Traffic Act against the defendant. This is an illegal act, which was conducted before the second payment deadline of the penalty payment notice, and the prosecution of this case based on the illegal summary judgment claim is null and void in violation of the law.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the court below as a whole of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, that is, I reported the defendant's act of violating the signal to the police with the left-hand turn, and reported to the police the defendant's vehicle that was driven in violation of the stop signal on the right side while the defendant was sent to the left-hand turn, and the police officer who controlled the traffic by the reception at the time was stated not to be the police officer, the police officer who controlled the traffic by the reception at the time is not confirmed, and the police officer who controlled the traffic by the reception at the vehicle screen image installed on the I is not the police officer's work site on the Tri-distance in this case, and it is confirmed that the police officer was not posted until 00 to 08:00 on the day when the defendant violated the signal, etc. at the time, this part of the defendant's assertion in this part is without merit.

B. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles