The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that the court below found the defendant guilty even though the defendant did not drive a taxi in a manner highly likely to cause danger and harm to others, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The crime of violation of Article 48 of the Road Traffic Act is established when a driver drives a taxi at a speed or in a manner that may cause danger and harm to others by not operating the steering system, brakes or other devices of the vehicle accurately, or by failing to comply with the traffic conditions of the road, or the structure or performance of the vehicle. It is interpreted that the specific speed or method of driving can be viewed as an act of driving that is highly likely to cause danger and harm to others, in light of the situation of road traffic and various devices, structures, and performance at the time of the vehicle. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do709, Nov. 25, 2010). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the instant case begins with the health stand, and the court below duly adopted and examined the evidence of the lower court, i.e., the Defendant tried to stop the taxi at the right edge of the urban bus to drive the taxi immediately before and after the driver stops the taxi at the central bus.