A. Legal reasoning does not constitute injury to a victim of misunderstanding the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court: (i) as the victim was unilaterally abused the Defendant’s vehicle while driving the Defendant’s vehicle on behalf of the Defendant, the victim immediately stops on the side and lowered the vehicle on the side, and then reported to the police; and (ii) the victim was placed in the investigative agency at the time of drinking the victim’s head, mama, left side, etc. on several occasions; (iii) the victim was flading the victim’s head, flag, and flading the victim’s body.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the victim consistently stated from the time of the accident; (b) the victim was hospitalized in E hospital immediately after the police report and received injection and physical therapy for 15 days; and (c) the medical doctor F of the above hospital diagnosed the victim to undergo two-day medical treatment on the date of the occurrence of the accident that “the brain-dead, the left-hand side, the hump, the hump, and the hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume h.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and correct.