A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts (the part of the crime) was threatened by a bus’s dangerous driving, and the Defendant returned to the original one lane after he was threatened by a bus’s danger and returned to the center, and followed play-oriented radars in the fact that he was over the center line. There was no intent to commit intimidation, bodily injury, or property damage, and there was no risk that the bus engineer was in his own act, and there was no causal relation with the part of the injury.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment, community service order, and order to attend a compliance driving lecture) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, such as misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1), the lower court rendered a judgment that the Defendant was not guilty of this part of the motor vehicle operated by the Defendant, even though the motor vehicle constitutes dangerous goods, by taking account of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, such as: (a) the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to whether to recognize dangerous goods; and (b) by carrying dangerous goods, thereby committing

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The defendant argued the same purport in the court below's judgment as to the defendant's assertion of mistake, and the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that at least dolusent criminal intent and causal relationship are recognized in detail at the bottom of the summary of evidence of the court's judgment, and the court below's judgment and the court below's judgment are just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant, since there is no error of mistake in the facts alleged by the defendant.

3. The lower court’s judgment on the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine reveals specific facts by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion in the acquitted portion