A. The Defendant, while driving a vehicle at the time of the instant case, committed a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and there was only the fact that the body was shaking on the very wind due to the high load of the Defendant’s vehicle, which is the cargo model altered in the process, in order to cause a confusion with the destination while driving the vehicle at the time of the instant case, and there was no intention to drive the vehicle with a dropty.

Nevertheless, the court below found all of the facts charged of this case guilty, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (three million won of a fine) imposed by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) In criminal trial proceedings conducted in the form of a participatory trial conducted in order to enhance the democratic legitimacy and trust of the judiciary, collective opinion presented to the full bench on the recognition of facts is an advisory effect to help a judge of a fact-finding who has full power over the preparation of evidence and fact-finding under the principle of substantial direct and psychological review and court-oriented trials. If a jury participated in the whole process of fact-finding, such as examination of witness witness, and the verdict of innocence issued in accordance with the unanimous opinion of unanimous rule as to the admission of evidence and fact-finding such as credibility of witness's statement, is adopted as it is, in light of the purport and spirit of the principle of substantial direct deliberation and court-oriented trials, the first instance judgment on the admission of evidence and fact-finding conducted in accordance with such procedure should be respected unless it appears that sufficient and clearly opposite evidence is clearly opposite to it through new evidence examination in the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do4265, Apr. 1, 2019, 2019).