The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant is unable to memory whether the defendant violated the signal signals stated in the facts charged, and it is difficult to prove that the defendant violated the signal given that the signal, such as image and signal, passed by the vehicle, appears separately from the signal given.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant was driving a vehicle in violation of the signal. The court below erred by misapprehending the fact.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below found the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by the court below, i.e., ① the defendant's act of violating the signal even though the vehicle was red signal. Although the signal and the vehicle's progress did not appear on one screen, it is judged that the information displayed by the machine is highly reliable unless there are special circumstances such as the nature of the unmanned camera operated mechanically by the program without personnel's operation, etc., (ii) when the road traffic inspection report by the road traffic management agency, the above control camera will operate normally, and ③ the contents of the defendant's assertion merely did not violate the signal, but merely did not believe the vehicle's image and photograph because it did not appear on one screen, and thus, this is merely subjective appraisal or thought of the defendant, and there is no objective circumstance to suspect that the regulating camera operated a vehicle differently, as stated in the facts charged.