Court dismissed appeal against traffic violation sentence, upholding facts and evidence sufficiency. The defendant's claim of non-operation was rejected. The court ruled the appeal was groundless. The court upheld the first-instance verdict. The defendant's appeal was rejected. The court confirmed the conviction. The appeal was dismissed. The court rejected the appeal. The verdict stands. The appeal failed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal against the first-instance verdict convicting him of two traffic violations. The defendant argued that he did not operate the vehicle and parked on a private road, claiming insufficient evidence of his guilt. The court rejected these claims, noting that the location was a residential zone marked with a D-40 sign and that the defendant's own photographic evidence contradicted his assertions. Consequently, the court upheld the original sentence and awarded costs to the state.