The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant entered the intersection without stopping the vehicle signal at the time of yellow signal, without having access to the intersection; and (b) the access to the intersection without stopping yellow signal cannot be punished as a signal violation; (c) the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The following facts and circumstances found by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below: ① the signal apparatus installed at the intersection of this case was occupied by red signal at the end of 0.6 seconds, ② the Defendant’s driving vehicle passes through the inspection line at the speed of 49km/h (Evidence No. 28 pages); ② the distance of 1.8 meters at the inspection of the signal violation; the distance of 1.8 meters at the end of 3.2 meters at the end of 1.2 meters at the end of the stop line; ③ the unmanned signal violation control equipment of this case is found to have operated normally as a result of the road traffic inspection conducted around January 201, 2016 (Evidence No. 27 pages); ④ According to the fact that the first road traffic signal response at the end of the Busan Metropolitan City, the traffic signal response at the end of the inspection at the end of the 1st inspection at the end of the 1st inspection at the end of the 2nd inspection at the end of the 1st inspection at the end of the road.

In the first, 1/100, considering the error, the entire vehicle of the defendant's driver is set to regulate only the vehicle that passed a stop line after 0.5 seconds, in full view of the fact that it is set to regulate only the vehicle that passed a stop line after 0.5 seconds, the whole vehicle of the defendant's driver is closed as the first stop.