The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the above judgment is publicly notified.

1. The penalty (two million won penalty) imposed by the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. (i) The need for ex officio determination: (i) the reason for appeal submitted by the Defendant along with the petition of appeal on November 14, 2015; and (ii) the reason for appeal submitted by the defense counsel on January 10, 2016, which is within the period for submission of a legitimate reason for appeal; and (iii) the reason for appeal submitted by the defense counsel on January 10, 201

D. Meanwhile, the court of appeals may only refer to cases where the grounds for ex officio are not stated in the petition of appeal or they are included in the statement of reasons for appeal submitted within the prescribed period unless they are stated in the petition of appeal. However, with respect to the grounds for ex officio investigation, the court of appeals must judge without any need to decide whether the grounds for ex officio have been submitted with respect to the submission of the reason for appeal or whether it has been included in the statement of reasons for appeal (proviso of Article 361-4 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Here, ex officio investigation includes not only obvious errors in the application of statutes or statutory interpretation, but also erroneous errors and unfair sentencing (see Supreme Court Order 2005Mo564, May 16, 2003, Supreme Court Order 2002Mo338, May 16, 2003, etc.). However, since the judgment of the court below in this case contains any obvious errors by mistake or misapprehension of legal principles as examined below, the court below's judgment as to the grounds of appeal in this case as to ex officio.

B. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case found guilty by the lower court is as follows.

On January 6, 2016, the Defendant was found to have violated signal provisions in front of the first apartment apartment 14 gold-gu, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, and received a penalty payment notification (hereinafter referred to as “the penalty payment notification”) on the ground that the Defendant was discovered to have violated signal provisions in front of the first apartment apartment 14 gold-gu, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, in lieu of Cheongju-si.