The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 was negligent in the occurrence of an accident, as he/she fulfilled his/her duty of care at the time of the traffic accident as indicated in the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant accident”).

subsection (b) of this section.

The defendant did not receive the victim from the right side of the front part of the vehicle, and the victim walked to the front part of the vehicle, while moving to the cargo vehicle.

In addition, the defendant did not know the occurrence of the accident of this case, and there was no intention to commit the crime of escape.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

On the other hand, the court below asserted that ① the point of accident is near the place where the defendant parks the cargo vehicle at all times, and the point where the defendant often sees it, ② the defendant was found that the victim immediately before the accident was under the influence of alcohol, and ② the defendant was able to prevent the accident or minimize the degree of damage by properly operating the steering and steering system. At the time of confirmation in the black image (including the chief image), if the situation is confirmed at the time of the accident, the accident could be prevented or at least by minimizing the degree of damage. At the time of the accident in the black image (including the chief image), it seems that the victim was shocked without securing a sufficient distance with the victim, ③ it is confirmed that the cargo vehicle at the time of the accident is facing the victim at the time of the accident, and ④ the defendant was able to take off the SD card of the black cambling.

In full view of the fact that it is inconsistent with the defendant's assertion that the defendant separately stored a traffic accident but did not recognize the traffic accident, the defendant violated his duty of care and caused the traffic accident and the fact of the accident.