The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendant was putting up the safety labelling at the time of the instant crackdown, but only there is a seal to confirm whether enforcement officers report and wear the safety labelling.

2. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the facts (the defendant, who set the hand on the left shoulder to confirm the wearing of the seat belt, was dismissed by the police officer regulating that the defendant was able to wear the seat belt.

The argument is asserted.

However, in the investigation stage and the front line of the Defendant's driver's vehicle at the lower court, the police officer D saw the Defendant to drive without wearing the safety seat belt, and the Defendant worn the safety seat belt for three times.

was stated.

According to the above statement, the controlling police officer attempted to detect the defendant's seat belt worn and regulate several times before he brought the defendant's hand to the left shoulder. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition. (However, it is obvious that the "No. 14:00 on May 18, 2015" of the second letter of criminal facts in the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the "No. 14:39 on May 18, 2015," and therefore, it is corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.