Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

The main point of the appeal is that there is a conflict between the back part of the damaged vehicle and the front part of the Defendant vehicle while the Defendant stopped for signal waiting.

The degree of damage suffered by the victim is very low and annoyed, which does not need to be treated as an upper state, and thereby causes damage to the completeness of body or physiological function by infringing on the health condition.

Therefore, it cannot be evaluated as an injury under Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant cannot be punished for bodily injury resulting from a dangerous driving pursuant to Article 5-11 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

Defendant

The court below's improper assertion of sentencing by the prosecutor sentenced 2 years of suspended sentence and 120 hours of community service work against the defendant in October of imprisonment. The defendant asserts that the above sentence is too unfortunate, and that the prosecutor is too unfortunate and unfair.

The lower court’s determination of the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine led to the confession of all the facts charged at the lower court (the trial record 29 pages). The lower court acknowledged, based on the evidence in its holding, the following facts: (i) the Defendant received medical treatment at the hospital immediately after the occurrence of the accident; (ii) the Defendant received two weeks’ diagnosis from the doctor of the hospital (e.g., sindum base, tension, sindum base, and tension) and determined that the degree of damage constituted the injury under Article 257 of

The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence of the lower court’s judgment.

The speed of the vehicle at the sea was 20 km per hour, and the damaged vehicle at the stop was concealed (Evidence 6 pages). The Defendant, at the time, proceeded to the police at a speed of about 3 km per hour.

The statement seems to have been made ( evidence Nos. 7). The vehicle number plate attached to the fronter of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant traffic accident appears to be somewhat protruding, and the rearer of the damaged vehicle is right-hand.