The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The key point of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding the facts) indicated on the road as “the maximum speed limit sign” and “the minimum speed limit sign” under the following part of the “determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts,” but in light of the overspeed control camera, driver’s license acquisition test issue, traffic safety, etc., the above mark is erroneously installed in a manner that does not meet the original meaning, and thus, the Defendant violated the speed limit.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. Article 4 of the Road Traffic Act provides for the types of traffic safety facilities, the methods and places where traffic safety facilities are installed, and other necessary matters concerning traffic safety facilities shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs.

“.......”

Accordingly, Article 8 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, which provides for this, shall be classified as follows:

Article 2(2) of the Road Traffic Act provides for "regulation signs" and Article 2(2) provides for "in the event that various restrictions, prohibitions, etc. are imposed for the safety of road traffic, signs informing the road users thereof." Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides for "the kinds, creation methods, places, standards, and marking of safety signs under paragraph (1) are as specified in attached Table 6.

“.......”

Accordingly, [Attachment Table 6]

Ⅱ Individual Standards

2. Regulation signs;

(b) Standards by type 224 provides the highest speed limit sign, 225 heading the lowest speed limit sign; and 225 heading the same as set out in each of the following paragraphs:

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can be found to have driven a motor vehicle in excess of the restricted speed at the place indicated as the above maximum speed limitation sign. Thus, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant violated Article 156 subparagraph 1 and Article 17 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, and the defendant otherwise recognized that he violated Article 156 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act.