The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Seized evidence No. 1 shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, was guilty of the facts charged in the instant case where: (a) the Defendant was guilty on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle driving at the time of the instant case (hereinafter “instant vehicle”); and (b) the victim’s death was not caused by the first accident, but by the second accident that led to the victim; and (c) the victim’s death was highly likely to occur due to the second accident that led to the victim, and thus, the Defendant cannot be held liable for the result of the victim’s death; (d) the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case that the Defendant got the victim to leave the right side of the instant vehicle, resulting in the death and escape; and (e) the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Since the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below ex officio is a crime falling under Article 5-3 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, statutory punishment is imprisonment for life or for not less than five years, if the above crime and the remaining crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below are to be sentenced to imprisonment for less than five years after the aggravated punishment of concurrent crimes, a small amount of punishment shall be mitigated pursuant to Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act.

However, the judgment of the court below, without reducing the amount of punishment, sentenced the defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months, thereby sentenced to a punishment lower than the minimum statutory penalty.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal, the defendant's mistake and misapprehension of legal principles still remains the judgment of this court.