The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In full view of the fact that the damaged person was located in the blind spot by a large sprinking vehicle with a height exceeding 3 meters operated by the Defendant, the Defendant’s vehicle was under low speed at the time, the accident site of this case did not change the status of the road surface due to access roads at the reconstruction site, and the Defendant’s vehicle did not find any sprinks or fiber pressures, etc., the Defendant did not recognize the accident of this case.
Although it is reasonable to view the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
A. The lower court also made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail on the Defendant’s assertion and its judgment in the item “judgment on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” of the judgment.
In light of the circumstances duly cited by the lower court, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the site of the accident at issue was installed adjacent to the entrance of the apartment reconstruction site, but there was no indication prohibiting the passage of people, etc. at the time, and thus, the Defendant could have sufficiently anticipated that the site of the accident at issue would allow people to pass through the site of the accident at issue. ② The Defendant operated a scambling vehicle at the above site from about 13 days prior to the date of the accident at issue. As such, the Defendant appears to have been well aware that there was no obstacle that could cause a relatively large scams even during low speed operation, such as the instant site of the accident at issue.