A. Defendant 1) In fact, the misunderstanding of the legal principles, and the Defendant committed the instant crime without having engaged in a net labor as a patient of early-time illness. In light of the circumstances such as the situation in which the victim was immediately deprived of the victim by immediately leaving the vehicle and immediately called the victim to 119, the Defendant did not have the intention of murder at the time of committing the instant crime.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the lower court, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated, did not have any negligence of murder at the time of committing the instant crime.

The recognition was recognized.

If the circumstances acknowledged by the court below are different from the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there are errors as alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

① 피고인은 경찰 조사에서 ‘ 차량으로 사람을 충격하면 다친다는 사실은 정신이 멀쩡한 일반인이면 다 알고 있는 사실 아닌가 ’라고 진술하였으며, 검찰 조사에서 ‘ 이 사건 당시 가속 페달을 세게 밟았던 것 같다’ 고 진술하였다.

In light of such defendant's statement, the defendant seems to have clearly expressed his intention to strongly shock the victim with his own vehicle at the time of the crime of this case.

실제로 피고인은 머뭇거림 없이 가속 페달을 밟아 차량의 속력을 높여 피해 자를 충격하였고, 그 때문에 피해 자가 옆으로 튕겨 나간 다음에야 차량을 정지시켰다.

(2) A car brace used by the defendant to attack the victim shall be in the form of a brace.