A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months and a fine of up to three hundred thousand won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

A. Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have a duty of care for the Defendant with regard to the mistake of facts and injury caused by mistake of legal principles, and cannot be deemed to have a causal relationship between the Defendant’s breach of the duty of care and the victim’s injury. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment and 500,000 won) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous in the determination of the evidence of the first instance court when it was intended to re-examine the first instance court’s judgment and re-examine the first instance court’s judgment, although there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of evidence during the trial process, even though there was no new objective reason that

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court shall not be reversed without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court made an assertion identical to the allegation in this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion by explaining detailed grounds for appeal. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that there was no objective reason that may affect the formation of new conviction in the trial, and there is no reasonable ground to deem that maintaining the judgment of the lower court is remarkably unfair when compared with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor [the reasonable circumstances] Defendant did not have any previous conviction.