A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant is guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, even though the Defendant carried dangerous articles with the Defendant and did not have any intention to inflict injury on the victim, on the part of the Defendant, even though he did not have any intention to inflict injury on the victim, in light of the fact that the Defendant was able to drive the vehicle with a high height of the vehicle and drive the vehicle in the balk, leaving the vehicle in the direction of the victim, not accurately see the location of the victim's lower half, and the victim's bridge became the wheels of the vehicle.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the defendant stated in the investigative agency that "The defendant was driving in the future as "I would like to see the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in which the defendant would not drive the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in order to prevent the vehicle from being operated," and that "I would like to see the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front and rear," and that "I would like to see the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in which the victim would not drive the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in which the victim would stop the vehicle in front of the vehicle in this case." According to the CCTV video at the time of the present case, the victim turned the vehicle in front of the defendant in front of the vehicle in front of the victim." Thus, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle is without merit.

B. Unreasonable sentencing.