A. In full view of the fact that the victim of mistake of facts is the aged 72 years old, that the victim was fluorily in order to avoid the Defendant’s vehicle, and that the victim seems to have aggravated due to the instant traffic accident even though the victim was considered to have suffered an injury with a tension due to the instant traffic accident, the judgment of the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, and the judgment of the court below on the charges of unfair sentencing (4 million won of a fine) which the court below rendered on the charges of this case is unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court duly adopted and examined the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake, namely, (i) stated that D’s witness D and E were in excess of D. However, CCTV images do not seem to have any fact that D was faced with the Defendant’s vehicle or exceeded its shock, and thus, D and E’s statement is difficult to believe; (ii) immediately after D’s occurrence of the case, the Defendant refused to issue a medical certificate in the Furgical surgery; and (iii) in the G Family Department of G, which was usual in around July 6, 2013, the date D’s occurrence of the instant case, “D was subject to drug treatment and medication before and after the instant case; and (iv) was issued a medical certificate of injury, which was “the 14 days’ treatment and tension; and (v) it did not seem that D had any serious inconvenience in the medical treatment or treatment after the instant case; (v) it did not appear that D had any further been suffering due to any significant inconvenience in the medical treatment or treatment after the instant case.