A. The lower court, which found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, did not violate the duty of care at the time of the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person engaging in driving a motor vehicle with a Fluent bid.

On April 7, 2016, the Defendant driven the above car at around 00:02, and led the two lanes in front of the two-lanes in the 10-lane 19, the following two-lanes in front of the two-lanes in the direction of the present elementary school from the Doksan Police Station.

At the time, there was a very short distance due to night and rain, and there was an intersection where signal lights are installed on the front side, so the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to reduce the speed and accurately operate the steering direction and the brake system by accurately manipulating the steering direction and the brakes.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was jointly accused of the previous traffic accident judgment due to negligence while neglecting it.

A, while driving a taxi at around 00:02 on April 7, 2016, at around 00:02, he did not avoid the victim E (the age of 55) who was crossing the road due to negligence while neglecting the duty of care, and had the victim go beyond the front part of the taxi.

The victim E (n, 55 years old) was not found in the above road due to the vehicle, and the victim was placed in the above vehicle, and the victim was living in the hospital of the original university located in the Yasan-si, 03:00 on the same day without any necessary measures, such as immediately stopping the vehicle and providing relief to the victim.

B. The lower court’s judgment.