The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) was inevitably driven by the Defendant to move the denial to the hospital after receiving the phone from the denied during night work, and thus, the Defendant’s act of driving is deemed to be excluded as an act of emergency evacuation.

(2) In light of the situation at the time of occurrence of heavy stress and depression, etc., the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of the denial of responsibility (mental disorder and expectation), as well as the Defendant was unable to expect the lawful act of the Defendant in light of the circumstance at the time when he was suffering from telephone from the denial of responsibility. Therefore, the Defendant is held accountable.

B. The sentence of the lower court on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. (1) Whether an act constitutes an act of necessity under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act of considerable reason to avoid present danger to one’s own or another’s legal interests. In this context, “an act of necessity” should be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, and the first act of necessity should be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, second, the method of causing the largest minor damage to the victim. Third, the benefits preserved by the act of necessity should be more superior to the benefits in danger, and fourth, the act of necessity must be appropriate means in light of social ethics or overall legal order.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, even if the Defendant was called from the denial at the time, such as the Defendant’s assertion, in light of the above legal principles, it is urgent to avoid the present danger at the time.