A. Fact-misunderstanding (as to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) the victims did not have any injury due to the traffic accident in the instant case, the victims was diagnosed with three weeks of care by falsity, and had no injury during the hospitalization period.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendants guilty on the charge of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) on the premise that the defendants suffered bodily injury.

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

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is rejected, on the ground that the Defendant was found to have inflicted an injury upon the victims of the instant traffic accident requiring approximately three weeks medical treatment.

① On November 22, 2016, at around 20:10, the Defendant received parts of a car from the victim by negligence, who driven a vehicle without securing a distance from 40 km at a speed of 40 km per hour from the front side of the direction direction, which is set at a three-distance intersection in front of the Drown-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, to the front side of the registration.

② On November 23, 2016, the date following the instant traffic accident, the victims were diagnosed by doctors K for about three weeks of clocks, tensions, etc., requiring medical treatment.

Victims E received hospitalized treatment from November 23, 2016 to December 29, 2016, and received outpatients on December 30 and December 1, 2016.

③ In the instant traffic accident, the damaged vehicle was destroyed to the extent that the repair cost of approximately KRW 2.3 million was exceeded (57 pages, 58 pages), and even if an on-site photograph (which was evidence record 10 to 12 pages), the shock between the damaged vehicle and the damaged vehicle was deemed to have been significant, as alleged by the Defendant.