The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of reasons for appeal: Fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles

A. According to the definition of the traffic-related laws and regulations regarding the “intersection”, the point at the end of the intersection of this case shall be deemed to be the line connecting the road adjacent to the lane that the Defendant entered after the left-hand turn (referred to as the distance from the four streets above). The Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the control of this case had already ceased to the above intersection, and thus, it does not constitute “stopping on the intersection” as stipulated in Article 25 subparag. 5 of the Road Traffic Act.

In addition, there was no concern that one defendant's vehicle might obstruct the passage of other vehicles from the four-distance off the same side to the four-distance off the same side.

Therefore, the defendant's act does not fall under the requirements of Article 25 (5) of the Road Traffic Act.

B. The Defendant was a person working on bus driving and was well aware of the signal of the instant location. As such, the Defendant was anticipated to have sufficiently cross-sectioned within the signal time at the time of the instant case, and thus, there was no criminal intent in violation of the Road Traffic Act to the Defendant.

2. We agree with the court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts alleged by the defendant or misunderstanding the legal principles, in addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below.

(1) E, a traffic control police officer, was unable to deviate from the intersection at the time of the crackdown of this case.

It seems that the difference between the four distances from the line to the four distances from the line.

did not enter the account.

“When the Defendant enters the intersection, it appears that the direction of the parallel distance appears to indicate the direction of the parallel distance from the four distances used in the direction of the proceeding.

They were not in a state of bruption but in a state of bruption.

There was also a difference in the front of the defendant's vehicle stamped on the photograph.

“......”