The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The Defendant did not recognize shockion at the time of the accident, and did not need to take measures to ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic by preventing and removing traffic hazards and obstacles. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact.

In addition, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal even in the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts.

As the court below properly explained, the defendant recognized the shock at the time of the accident.

In light of the situation at the time, there was a need to take measures to ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic risks and obstacles to the defendant.

I seem to appear.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

B. There is no significant change in circumstances to consider the sentencing of the defendant after the judgment of the court below regarding the unfair argument of sentencing.

Examining the conditions of sentencing and the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records and changes in the instant case, even if considering all the circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair due to the lack of sentencing.

We do not accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.