The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below that recognized that the defendant did not have the seat belt even though the defendant was seat belt at the time when he was subject to control is erroneous in matters of mistake of facts.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① a notice of penalty payment and a receipt of a penalty in possession of a police officer when traffic control are conducted, are individually possessed by each individual police officer in charge of controlling police officers, and a single device is used jointly with other police officers. Since the police officer who controlled the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant did not fasten the seat belt is registered in D, the above D appears to be a police officer who controlled the Defendant at the time, ② the above D appears to be a police officer who stated in the investigative agency and the court of the court below that the Defendant did not wear the seat belt at the time of the control, ③ the Defendant stated that he did not wear the seat belt at the time of the control, ③ the police officer was waiting to leave the seat belt by the police officer’s direction, and it is generally recognized that the Defendant did not fasten the seat belt when the police officer was waiting for the seat belt. However, if the police officer was in such situation, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant did not have a seat belt.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant to commit a violation of Article 156 subparagraph 6 and Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is just and acceptable, and it is so argued as the grounds for appeal.