The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury with a deadly weapon, etc.), the Defendant changed the vehicle line at a speed of 20 km a speed of a stod-car operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) with a view to lowering the speed of 20 km a speed at the time of the vehicle operated by the Defendant. The vehicle in the column operated by the victim D (hereinafter “victimd vehicle”) did not reduce a speed while following the Defendant’s vehicle. As such, the Defendant did not have any intention to inflict an injury on the victims.

Even if the Defendant had the intent to injure, the speed of the Defendant’s vehicle was not fast to 20km per hour at the time of the instant accident, and there was time for the damaged vehicle to sufficiently avoid the Defendant’s vehicle, so the Defendant’s vehicle does not constitute “hazardous things”.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment and fine of KRW 1,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the argument that there was no intention to believe that there was no intention to commit a mistake of facts regarding the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury with deadly weapons, etc.), and the following circumstances, which could be revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the Defendant’s vehicle driven the three-lane of the instant expressway, and the damaged vehicle driven the two-lane of the instant expressway in the front side of the Defendant vehicle. However, in the event that the damaged vehicle turns the two-lane of the instant expressway in the front side of the Defendant vehicle, the Defendant was driving the damaged vehicle almost far away from the damaged vehicle by reducing the speed of the Defendant vehicle, while the Defendant’s defect in the course of driving the damaged vehicle continued to stand in the middle of the instant expressway, which is a two-lane of the damaged vehicle.