1. A. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment of conviction against Defendant A and the part concerning the crime Nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor 1) found Defendant B not guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (the measures that were not taken after the accident) among the facts charged against Defendant B, although Defendant B, who escaped after the accident, was likely to attack Defendant B, and the width of the road at the location where the accident occurred was narrow and thereby hindered the passage, the court below acquitted Defendant B of the facts. The judgment of the first instance court was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The sentence of the first instance judgment against the illegal Defendants (Defendant A: Imprisonment of one year and six months, and Defendant B: imprisonment of one year and six months, with respect to the crimes of the 2 and three as indicated in the holding, two years of suspended execution in June, and fine of four million won for the crimes of the 4 and 5 as indicated in the holding) is too uneased and unfair.

B. Defendant A1) In fact, the Defendant did not have any fact that the Defendant abused the victim BG, and even if there was any fact that the Defendant abused the victim BG, this constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act, and thus, constitutes a mistake of fact in the judgment of the second instance court.

2) The punishment of the first instance judgment and the sentence of the second instance judgment and the sentence of the second instance judgment (the amount of KRW 3 million) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On August 4, 2014, Defendant B, at around 07:30 on the summary of this part of the facts charged, left the front bridge of the “O” located in Yangju-si from the side of our restaurant to the distance of scarp trees, Defendant B, without taking necessary measures, such as repair cost, etc., of the victim PP driver’s freight onto the front 198,278 won, even if the repair cost, such as repair of the PP driver’s freight, was destroyed to the degree of damage, and left the scene, left the scene without leaving the Defendant’s cargo vehicle at the accident scene.

2) The lower court’s judgment: “(i) The instant accident found the damaged vehicle that the Defendant was going to turn to the left at the entrance of the bridge and followed the balke, but the degree of shock was very insignificant as it was the shock of the front part of the damaged vehicle while getting out of the bridge (17 pages of the investigation record), and ② the victim was the victim.