A. The Defendant’s act of violating the signal was committed, since the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts led to brooms to brooms. Therefore, the instant accident occurred.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (hereinafter “the penalty”) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the above argument is due after the deadline for submitting the statement of reasons for appeal is too excessive and thus cannot be a legitimate reason for appeal (ex officio examination is conducted, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the police and the court below: (i) the defendant alleged that “the injured person was in excess of his own police vehicle while driving a vehicle by violating the signal signal,” and (ii) the defendant argued as stated in paragraph 1-A as it was in the first instance trial; (iii) the situation of the road was confirmed as at the time, unlike the assertion, in light of the black boxes, on-site photographs, and on-site yellow survey report, the fact that the condition of the road was built at the time; (ii) the injured person was found to have been aware of the bus of the defendant driving a vehicle left to the left in violation of the signal, and thus, the accident of this case was caused by the defendant’s direct reason for the

In light of the fact that it is reasonable to view the fact that the defendant has inflicted bodily injury on the victim by negligence as stated in the facts charged in the original judgment, and therefore, this part of the allegation is without merit. (b) In full view of all the circumstances surrounding the sentencing since the original judgment, there is no change of circumstances that may be considered in the sentencing, and the circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records and changes, even if considering the circumstances alleged by the defendant as grounds for appeal, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable

3. Conclusion.