A. In order to determine whether an accident occurred or not, the Defendant has stopped in front of the damaged vehicle in order to consider that the damaged vehicle has been in contact with the damaged vehicle by operating the collision settlement system of the Defendant vehicle on the wind that the damaged vehicle gets a sudden stop in front of the Defendant vehicle in front of the damaged vehicle, but there is no repeated change of course or sudden operation, thereby causing a threat or danger to the damaged vehicle.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

B. The lower court’s sentence (two million won of fine) on the ground of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. In the judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant argued that the damaged vehicle operated the collision settlement system of the defendant vehicle on the wind where the damaged vehicle suddenly moves down in the front of the damaged vehicle, and that the defendant inevitably committed the above actions in order to consider that the contact with the damaged vehicle occurred, and to build the damaged vehicle, the court below rejected the above argument in detail with the defendant's assertion and its decision. The above circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below are as follows: (i) the fact that the defendant stops at a distance from the damaged vehicle after changing course in the front of the damaged vehicle, i.e., (ii) the fact that the defendant was found to have stopped without checking the condition of the damaged vehicle, and (ii) the defendant changed the course to the damaged vehicle in the future by avoiding the damaged vehicle from the damaged vehicle to the third way, and (iii) the defendant changed the course of the damaged vehicle.