The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mistake of the substance of the grounds for appeal and mental and physical disorder, which affected the conclusion of the judgment below, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical disorder, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the mental and physical disorder, even though the Defendant was at the time of the occurrence of an accident involving a vehicle driven by the victim F with a vehicle driven by the Defendant due to an outbreak of brain f (hereinafter “the first accident”), and immediately after the occurrence of the second accident involving a vehicle driven by the victim H (hereinafter “the second accident”); and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the physical and mental disorder.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, 120 hours of community service order, 40 hours of lecture order for compliance driving) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles as to mistake and mental and physical disorder, the defendant suffered brain from around 2009 to the present time, and the possibility that the defendant was suffering from brain fin, fin, fin, fin, and fin, fin, fin, fin, and fenna for the defendant at the time of the accident at the time of the accident as a result of the appraisal of the blood of the defendant of the National Science Investigation Agency, the defendant was sent to S Hospital after the accident in this case, and was hospitalized after the accident in this case. Since 0:39 on August 9, 2016, the defendant was sent to S hospital and was hospitalized with the symptoms caused to the defendant from 00:39 on August 9, 2016, it cannot be ruled out that the defendant was suffering from brain finite symptoms at the time of the accident.

However, according to the above evidence, the defendant observed the vehicle line at a certain speed of 80km per hour immediately before the occurrence of the first accident, and was a stable driving along the first lane, and the defendant found the traffic sign which was set up at the one-lane prior to the occurrence of the first accident and avoided it.