Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

As to the judgment of the court below of first instance, it is true that Defendant B driven the wing and freight truck (hereinafter “the instant wing and freight truck”) at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, Defendant A did not drive under the influence of alcohol, and Defendant B did not allow Defendant B to escape from A who committed a crime equivalent to or heavier than a fine by means of making himself/herself a driver himself/herself by fraud.

The prosecutor (unfair form of punishment) sentenced by the court below to the defendants (the defendants are sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) are too uneased and unfair.

Defendant

The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant A (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, one year of probation, and forty hours of an order to attend a compliance driving lecture) of the lower court on the second instance judgment is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Defendant

Before determining the respective arguments of the defendant A and the prosecutor, the defendant A and the defendant A filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance as to the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, and the court of first instance decided to hold a joint hearing as to each of the above appeals cases. Since each of the above offenses in the judgment of the court of first instance is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained any more.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for ex officio destruction, since the above argument of mistake of facts against the judgment of the court of first instance is still subject to the judgment of the court of this Court, the following is examined.

The lower court determined the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, and i.e., the Defendant A stated that the towing vehicle engineer and the police officer called for immediately after the accident were driven by himself.