The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although a misunderstanding of the facts or legal principles did not generate non-products due to a traffic accident caused by the Defendant, there was a tendency to witness the witness, and the occurrence of additional traffic danger and impediment due to the above witness beyond the above witness, etc., the Defendant was required to take measures after the accident, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby making a mistake of not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of suspension of execution in six months of imprisonment, order of observation of protection, and order of community service of one hundred hours in 100 hours) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the lower court are: (a) the vehicle owner was parked at the time of shock; (b) the vehicle owner was not at the scene; (c) the non-products were not reduced due to shock; and (iv) the witness was able to find out the fact that he was driving the Defendant’s vehicle by driving the Defendant vehicle on board the Ortoba in which he was driving; but (b) the witness was friendly and indirect character of the vehicle or the circumstances that the traffic accident was not accompanied by the traffic accident, etc., on the ground that this part of the facts charged does not constitute a crime or constitutes a case where there was no proof of criminal facts.

B. For the following reasons, this part of the facts charged is proven guilty in relation to traffic accidents against Eranchising vehicles owned by the victim D. Therefore, among the judgment of the court below on this part, the above part of the judgment of the court below erred by mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

1) The legal provisions applicable to this part of the facts charged are Articles 148 and 54 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 14356, Dec. 2, 2016; hereinafter the same).