A. Fact-misunderstanding ① The instant traffic accident was caused by the wind to cope with the vehicle by plucking, plucking, etc. while the Defendant was in an excessive speed rather than by the fault of the illegal intern. Thus, the instant traffic accident was caused by the Defendant’s fault and the instant traffic accident, and the Defendant did not recognize that the instant traffic accident was caused by his fault at the time of escape from the scene of the accident. As such, the Defendant did not recognize that the instant traffic accident was caused by his fault.

However, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which affected the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (7 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, not only the case where the Defendant’s negligence caused the result of the victim’s thought but also the case where there was another fact, such as the victim or a third party’s negligence, etc. between the act and the result thereof, can be acknowledged if such fact can be ordinarily predicted (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Do3612, Mar. 22, 1994; 2014Do6206, Jul. 24, 2014). In light of the foregoing legal principles, the instant case is a health care unit; i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the court below and investigated by the court below; i.e., the victim took place at the speed of 70 to 80 km at a speed within the limit of time prior to the occurrence of the instant traffic accident by the police.

was stated and otherwise, the injured person was driving in an excessive speed.

There is no material to see that there is no material to see, 2 The victim of domestic affairs has been driven under the speed.

Even if the instant traffic accident occurred, the instant accident occurred.