The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for eight months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the defendant guilty of the charges of this case, even though the court below should have dismissed the indictment of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (10 months without prison labor) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of misapprehension of legal principles, the fact that K, the victim's children after the prosecution of this case, submitted a written agreement with the victim on October 20, 2015, stating the victim's intention not to punish the defendant as the representative of the victim is recognized.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that K has the legal authority to indicate the intention of punishment on behalf of the victim, and there is no evidence to prove that the victim is in an unidentified state.

On the other hand, since its family members are not able to express their intent to punish the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do1052 delivered on September 13, 1983, etc.), the above circumstance alone cannot be deemed to explicitly express the intent that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of the above legal principles.

B. It is recognized that the occurrence of serious injury to the victim, such as the omission of the victim’s consciousness due to the instant traffic accident, etc. due to the wrongful assertion for sentencing, and that the Defendant subscribed only to liability insurance and did not subscribe to a comprehensive automobile insurance

However, the instant traffic accident is not caused by gross negligence falling under the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

The defendant took appropriate relief measures after the accident, and the court below made a very serious effort to recover damage from the victim's family.