The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The facts charged in this case and a summary of the grounds for appeal

A. The facts charged in the instant case are as follows, which the court below rejected Defendant’s criminal intent and rendered a judgment of the suspension of execution of imprisonment with prison labor, and found Defendant guilty.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a low-priced vehicle.

On April 8, 2016, when the defendant left Seo-gu, Seowon-gu, Cheongju-si around 13:06, the defendant proceeded with approximately 299 km-si, Busan-si, Busan-do, Busan-do, Busan-do, at the Busan-do, along three-lanes from the Busan-do, to the 5-lane.

At the time, the Defendant changed the vehicle line to the right side. In such a case, there was a duty of care to change the vehicle line safely by operating the direction to the person engaged in driving and keeping the traffic situation before and after the driving.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and changed the lanes from the three lanes to the four lanes, and changed the lanes from the four lanes to the five lanes, and caused the collision between the expressway soundproof walls by taking the upper right side of the FST5 vehicle driven by the victim E (SM5) driving in the five lanes in the five lanes in the five lanes in the course of the re-motor vehicle, and taking the upper right side of the above SS5 vehicle into the upper right side of the above wing5 vehicle into the upper right side.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as salt and tensions that require approximately two weeks of medical treatment by occupational negligence as above, and at the same time, the Defendant escaped without immediately stopping the MF5 vehicle owned by the victim G to take necessary measures, such as providing rescue to the victim of the traffic accident, even though it damages approximately KRW 5,438,854 of repair cost.

B. (1) The defendant, who was driving on an expressway at the time of the accident of this case, was at the time of the accident of this case, due to the risk of the after-accident, was not at the site immediately after the accident, and was driving about about 5 km more widely following the accident.