A. At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions by mixing the spirit with the urology of the relevant urology.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of the judgment on the assertion of mental and physical disorder, although the defendant was found to have suffered from urology at the time of the crime of this case, the defendant stated that in the police, the defendant was sent a signal when she tried to see that the road would be wide where the defendant would cross-section after the accident of this case, because the defendant's wife at the time of the accident of this case, was able to get off the urology at the time of the accident of this case. In light of the above statements, the defendant cannot be seen to have suffered from urology at the time of the accident of this case. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Although the Defendant’s vehicle is recognized to have subscribed to a motor vehicle comprehensive insurance policy, if considering the fact that three damaged vehicles are damaged by the instant accident, the victim did not suffer injury, etc., the Defendant has the same criminal history, and other sentencing conditions as indicated in the record and oral argument, the Defendant’s sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.