The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) showed that the Defendant turned on the yellow light of vehicle signal, etc. 9 meters from the stop line. However, at the time, the Defendant passed the intersection promptly in consideration of the fact that the speed of the vehicle was about 60km/h, that there was a tendency for the Defendant’s vehicle driving at the time, that a large amount of accidents would have occurred if he would go through a yellow boom, and that the traffic police who was in compliance with this situation was under the control of the Defendant’s red light, and that the Defendant was erroneous in entering the intersection at the time when the Defendant was red light, and controlled the Defendant as a signal violation.

2. The judgment of the court below ① The witness F made a statement to the effect that "the access to the intersection when the yellow light of the original signal is light constitutes a violation of signal, but in this case there are many time limits as to whether the signal has been violated or not, and in the case of the land control, there is a lot of limits compared to the signal shooting with the driver. Therefore, the vehicle is actually and clearly controlled by the signal violation only when the vehicle enters the intersection after the signal has been reded and the signal has been cut off. In the case of the defendant, the defendant also enters the intersection after the red color of the signal apparatus was cut off and then the signal has been cut off." According to the above statement, the defendant appears to have entered the intersection in violation of signal signals even if the red light of the vehicle signal, etc. is reported, which is also seen below.

② According to Article 6 subparagraph 2 and attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, when a signal apparatus is yellowed, vehicles and horses shall stop immediately before a stop line or a crosswalk exists, and shall stop immediately before the intersection if a vehicle and a horse already enter the intersection. Thus, even if the Defendant’s assertion is true, it does not stop before the stop line.