A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and mistake 1) Defendant was making a normal round at the time of a traffic accident recorded in the facts constituting the crime of the lower court (hereinafter “the instant accident”), while the victim was obstructing the Defendant’s right round by violating the method of driving the bicycle, and thus, Defendant was negligent in relation to the instant accident.

It is difficult to see it.

2) Although the Defendant heard shocks at the time of bypassing as above, it was only thought that the shocks were added to the vessels loaded on the ridges.

Therefore, after the occurrence of the instant accident, the Defendant left the scene with the intention of committing a crime of escape.

It is difficult to see it.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, namely, the victim's driving at the time of the occurrence of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the occurrence of the accident at the time of the accident at issue: (i) the victim was driving a bicycle at the right edge of the three-lane road, which is located along the three-lane right edges of the direction of the drawing distance, among the three-lane roads in Incheon under the new subparagraph; and (ii) the above method of driving at the same time complies with the special provisions on bicycle driving method under Article 13-2(2) of the Road Traffic

It is difficult to see that the Defendant was driving a bicycle, and the Defendant was driving a vehicle at a considerable speed from the left side of the vehicle to overtake the victim, which was a relatively low speed of driving on the bicycle, and moved the vehicle to the right side (the Defendant also moved along three lanes).

The defendant asserts that the trial record (the trial record No. 29 pages, No. 1 of the Reasons for Appeal) and the process of appeal, and when considering the process, the method of selecting the front as provided by Article 21(3) of the Road Traffic Act, and the same law.