The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the Defendant’s injury among the facts charged in the instant case, the degree of injury to a brain salky in which the victim’s detailed identity is unknown shall not interfere with his daily life and shall be limited to extremely minor circumstances allowing natural therapy within a short period of time, and it is difficult to view that the victim’s physical health condition is inferior and that the victim’s function is hindered. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the injury constitutes an injury under Article 257(1)

B. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) from among the facts charged in the instant case by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant, as well as the victim, threatened the victim who was driving by acting as a harming the victim, such as scambling of a vehicle on board with the victim as well as scambling of heavy rain and sun light ging of sunlight and windows, etc., but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 500,00

2. Before making ex officio judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor, the Prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment as stated in Article 4-1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (accidents against Drivers, Violence, etc.) from among the facts charged in the instant case. Since this Court permitted this, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles and prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. The following facts are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine.