A. Of the instant facts charged, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which caused the injury to the victim H by the instant accident, and determined that the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act which damaged the passenger car driven by the victim F (hereinafter “victim”) by dismissing the public prosecution. In so doing, the lower court did not indicate the part dismissing the prosecution as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that each of the facts charged in the instant case is in a commercial concurrent relationship, and did not indicate it in the text

On the other hand, only the defendant appealed against the judgment below. The violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which the court below found guilty, and the violation of the above Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which are formally concurrent relations with each other, are judged to be remanded to the court below, but since this court cannot be tried and sentenced again to conviction due to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, since the above violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which had already been tried by the parties, could not be tried and sentenced again (see Supreme Court Decision 200

B. The summary of the grounds for appeal (1) misunderstanding of facts (1) as follows: (a) the vehicle driven by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant hazard vehicle”) enters the instant intersection; (b) the instant accident was only caused by the F’s negligence while driving the vehicle behind the instant sea vehicle; and (c) the Defendant did not have breached the duty of due care; and (b) even if the Defendant had been negligent,

In light of the above, the Defendant’s negligence and the occurrence of the instant accident are without causation, as it directly causes the instant accident, and ③ the Defendant’s own sound of the passenger of the instant sea vehicle was suddenly sounded on the wind, so it is probable that the lawful act will be expected.