All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.

However, in consideration of the following circumstances, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which found Defendant A guilty of violation of the Road Traffic Act (and violation of the Road Traffic Act) and the Road Traffic Act among the facts charged against Defendant A.

As to the damage of occupational negligence, the part that “the part that received the right side part of the said two-wheeled automobile from the left side of the said two-wheeled automobile was not specified in the facts charged because the damaged part is not specified specifically.

Defendant

A did not neglect the duty of care necessary for the performance of his duties in changing the lanes from the second lane to the first lane.

Rather, on the one hand, Defendant B’s U.S. driver’s vehicle driven at the first lane is merely a conflict between the right side of the vehicle of U.S. and the left side side of the two-wheeled vehicle driven by Defendant A. Since Defendant A’s negligence in the course of duty does not damage the U.S. driver’s vehicle of U.S. driver’s license, Defendant A did not have a duty to take measures at the time of the occurrence of a traffic accident.

If there is a duty to take measures in the event of a traffic accident.

Even if Defendant B intentionally shocked Defendant A and caused the injury to Defendant A, so it was impossible to expect Defendant A to take relief measures at the time of the occurrence of the accident.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant A (the penalty amounting to KRW 12 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (Defendant A: a fine of 12 million won, Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor of 10 million won) that the lower court sentenced the Defendants is too uneased and unreasonable.

Judgment

Defendant

The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of the facts A.