A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, was aware that he was faced with the Oralba, and the victim on the Oralba was not aware of the fact that he fell beyond the floor, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence (2.00,000 won 5,000 won) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime of this case as it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle as alleged in the judgment below, since the defendant changed the vehicle from the first to the second to the second to the second to the right part of the above vehicle, and the victim's right part of the victim's right part of the vehicle driving in the second to the second to the second to the right part of the above vehicle, ② the victim's right part of the vehicle operated by the defendant is connected with the vehicle, ② the defendant s right part of the vehicle operated by the defendant, the defendant s right part of the vehicle operated by the victim was cut down, ③ the defendant s right part of the vehicle operated by the victim's vehicle was cut down, ③ the defendant s right part of the vehicle was cut down and turned off the vehicle without taking a measure to get off the vehicle from the vehicle, and the defendant did not immediately stop the accident due to the conflict with the victim's right part of the accident.

B. The circumstances favorable to the defendant are recognized, such as the fact that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, and that the defendant has no record of the same kind of crime, by considering the unfair argument of sentencing.

However, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant.