A. In fact, there is no evidence that the defendant misunderstanding of facts did not go beyond the victim F, who was riding a bicycle in opposite parts due to the negligence of the central line, and that F sustained the same injury as the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below due to the accident in this case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (five months of imprisonment without prison labor and one year of suspended execution) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the appellate court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant was killed in the middle line of yellow solid lines before reaching the middle line of white dominton at the date and place stated in the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment below and on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the appellate court, and was

F intends to make a sudden stop in order to discover the vehicle of the accused and avoid this.

Since it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant was injured as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below because it goes beyond the road floor, the defendant's assertion of facts is rejected.

B. In full view of all the circumstances that are favorable to the Defendant, Defendant’s taxi driver, etc. who joined the Financial Cooperative, etc. to the extent that the Defendant’s negligence was large, and the degree of injury to the victim was serious, and the Defendant committed the instant crime at the appellate trial, etc., the Defendant had the record of being punished twice as a violation of the Road Traffic Act, the Defendant had the record of being punished by each fine for violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and there was no special change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court after the pronouncement of the lower judgment, such as the agreement, etc., and other various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, environment, sex behavior, motive for committing the instant crime, and conditions before and after committing the crime.