A. misunderstanding of facts did not conflict with the right side of the defendant's Trick, and as bank trees have been constructed on the road, the defendant's Trick had to shock.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (hereinafter referred to as a fine of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in determining the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant Leper conflict with the right-hand boundary, and due to which bank trees have been abandoned.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion of mistake is not accepted.

(1) A Party exists on the right-hand side below parasive bank trees.

② If bank trees had been replaced on the road as alleged by the Defendant, they had already faced with a similar height of truck or winger that had been driven before Defendant Trick.

On the day of the instant accident, it is difficult to view that bank trees have been cut down on the road immediately before the passage of the Defendant’s Tricker, rather than at the time when rain or wind has broken down.

③ The Defendant led to confession of the facts charged in the lower court’s court.

4) The defendant asserts that since there is no trace of collisions with the defendant's Tricks, the defendant's Tricks did not conflict with the right side of the boundary line.

However, if the defendant's steering gear is in conflict with the other party's steering gear with the other party's steering gear, the right wheeler's position outside Twiter's boundary may lead to the defendant's Ticker's traces of collision. Thus, the above facts alone, such as the defendant's assertion, cannot be viewed as following other circumstances and the defendant's Ticker did not conflict with the other party's steering gear.

B. The defendant's judgment on the argument of unfair sentencing is identical to that of the defendant.