The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although the Defendant did not recognize the occurrence of the instant traffic accident at the time of the instant case, even if not, the injury inflicted on the victim due to the instant traffic accident does not constitute “injury” under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, community service order 160 hours, and 40 hours of order to attend a course) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below's argument of mistake of facts and the trial court.

① The instant traffic accident, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.159%, was driven by the Defendant driving a sea-going vehicle while driving at the center line of the fourth line of the road across the direction of the opposite direction, is likely to cause considerable damage to the damaged vehicle at the level of its repair cost of KRW 1,747,52. ② The Defendant continued to drive the instant traffic accident before and after the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, including dancing distance, and appeared to have a significant impact on the driving method or speed of the instant accident. In full view of the following: (a) the Defendant, at the time of the instant accident, appears to have caused considerable impact on the victim’s body at the time of the instant accident; and (b) the Defendant, while driving the instant traffic accident before and after the instant accident, appears to have caused considerable impact on the other party to the instant accident and the fact that the injury caused considerable impact on the victim’s body.

On the other hand, the Defendant did so as above.