All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles does not have any fact of having a cab driver operated by the victim on his hand, and cannot be deemed to have a duty of care to properly cope with the driver at the time so as not to obstruct the driver’s operation. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (fine 3,00,000) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: ① as long as the Defendant was on board a taxi operated by the victim (hereinafter “the instant taxi”), the Defendant was obliged to take appropriate measures to protect the life or body of the victim while driving the taxi, and ② the Defendant first moved to the head of the instant taxi in the back seat of the instant taxi, who was at cost, and caused the instant taxi to be cut off at the taxi rate; thereafter, the instant taxi was plucked to the right side of the passenger, and received street trees, etc.; ③ the victim argued from the police to the police station in Bupyeong Station to the court of the lower court; ③ When considering the fact that the Defendant was able to consistently take advantage of the fact that the Defendant was on board the instant taxi at the time of the instant accident, the Defendant did not appear to have been able to have been able to suffer from drinking, etc. in light of the fact that the Defendant was on board the instant taxi at the time of the instant accident.