1. The summary of the charge against the Defendant is as follows: (a) on February 22, 2013, the Defendant: (b) while driving a F rocketing 3 vehicle driving in the Hast and Tystal on the Hastal on the Hastal on the Hastal Do road located in the Hastal G G in the Hastnnam-gun, the Defendant, by neglecting the duty of care to ensure the safe driving of the road while checking the safety of the course, by neglecting the duty of care to ensure the safety of the course, at around 20:26 on the same day, by neglecting the victim I, who was shocked to the Eststal Ethstal vehicle of Co-Defendant A and was used on the road, resulting in the death of the victim due to diversified damage, etc.; and (c) stopping the vehicle immediately without taking necessary measures, such as taking relief measures.

2. As to this, the lower court: (a) according to the written autopsy on the body of a doctor, the victim died during the transfer of the hospital, and the date and time of the death were indicated as around February 22, 2013 (in accordance with the investigation record 46 pages); (b) according to the autopsy report by the National Science Investigation Agency on the victim, the victim suffered fatal damage by the vehicle of Co-Defendant A in the lower judgment, but does not seem to have suffered fatal damage; (c) the vehicle of both A and the Defendant appears to have caused serious pressure damage to the victim by reverse the victim’s chest and part (189 pages of investigation record); (d) after the victim was over the victim, the Defendant re-victimed the victim at a rate of eight minutes, ④ A was driving at a speed of 30 to 3040km per hour at the time of the instant case; and (d) the Defendant was driving at a speed of 60 to 700 km; and (e) the Defendant was driving at a speed of 171 meters per hour (1).

Even if it is difficult to see that the victim was dead at the time of the second accident in which the 8 minutes elapsed, and rather, the victim is a second accident by the defendant.