The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) signals, etc. at the place of occurrence of the instant accident were removed without legitimate deliberation and thus illegally installed signal, etc.

Therefore, at the place where the accident in this case occurred, the signal system, such as the signal signal, etc. shall be followed by the lawfully installed opening-distance intersection, and the defendant is not negligent in violating the signal, since the accident in this case occurred while going to the right and right and right and right and the defendant is going to the right and right and right turn at the intersection.

2. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in determining the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the reasoning of the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion

It does not appear (it is difficult to view that the above signal, etc. is not effective or does not comply with the signal system of the above signal, etc., solely on the ground of such circumstance, even if the signal, etc. at the place of occurrence of the accident was removed without legitimate deliberation, as alleged by the defendant, even though the signal, etc. at the place of occurrence of the accident was removed without legitimate deliberation). 3. As such, the defendant's appeal is groundless, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364