The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant was proceeding along one lane among the eight-lane roads where a landing bridge is installed at night, and the place where an accident occurred was the entrance of the motorway, and thus, it was impossible to drive a vehicle without permission even when there is a person crossing the road. Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the Defendant in relation to the instant traffic accident. Therefore, the Defendant was at risk of the secondary accident, and the Defendant was forced to board the victim on the vehicle, and the Defendant was trying to directly send the victim to the hospital, but the vehicle was destroyed by the front glass, making it difficult to drive the victim on the part of the Defendant’s restaurant, and did not have an intention to escape only from the vehicle to the Defendant’s restaurant as the H’s advice.

3) Inasmuch as the Defendant, at the time of arrival in the emergency room of a Korean hospital together with H, expressed that he was the party who caused the accident while submitting the Defendant’s identification card, and did not cause a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed. (B) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment is too unreasonable) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, 1) The driver of the vehicle driving on the side of the road where pedestrians are prohibited from crossing the relevant legal principles, discovered the victim on the front sidewalk.

Even if the victim does not seem to move or color the roadway, it is generally difficult for the us to anticipate that the us is the original road because it is difficult for the us to anticipate that the us is the original road. In such a case, it is sufficient for ordinary pedestrians to observe the traffic-related laws and regulations, and to operate the road with the trust of the us to cross the road without crossing the roadway, and unless there are any special circumstances, there is no duty of care to take measures to expect pedestrians who are up to the us and prevent

Supreme Court Decision 99 delivered on September 10, 1985