The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) did not violate the signal as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged only by the testimony of D, who is a public official of the

2. The following circumstances, i.e., the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, which are public officials of the controlling police, are specifically and consistently stated in the investigation agency and the court of the court below as to the control background and the defendant's signal violation situation (in the meantime, D was about 120 meters away from the point where it was controlled during the investigation process and the point where the defendant violated the

On the other hand, according to the NAV map submitted by the defendant (No. 1-1), the distance between the two points actually above is about 300 meters.

However, even if based on the above NAV guide and each photograph (No. 2-1-9) submitted by the Defendant, it is deemed possible to sufficiently ascertain whether the Defendant violated the signal at the point where D was located for the control of D). In full view of the fact that D, a police official, appears to have no reason to make a false statement, the Defendant is found to have violated the signal as described in the facts charged in the instant case.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.