A. There is no misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles against the victim.

Even if the defendant was faced with the defendant's taxi and the victim, the defendant was not aware of this.

Furthermore, the victim did not suffer any injury, such as catitis, which requires treatment for two weeks due to the traffic accident in the instant case.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, community service, and compliance driving instruction) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine.

The court below rejected the above argument in detail, and in light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is legitimate, and thus, it is difficult to accept the defendant's allegation of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles

B. The determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, the sentencing of the first instance court is respected.