The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles do not seem to have seen the victim D's raise, etc. from the defendant's vehicle behind several times, there is no intention to interfere with traffic since it was stopped for safety.

Since the injury of the victims who were on board a rear-down vehicle was the main cause of violation of the duty of front-time care or the maintenance of safe distance, there is no causal relationship between the defendant's act of stopping the vehicle and the result of the injury of the victims.

Furthermore, since the defendant's vehicle stopping act was conducted in accordance with Article 64 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act in order to prevent danger, the illegality is excluded in accordance with Article 20 of the Criminal Act as it constitutes an act by law.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, and thus, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability as at the time of committing the instant crime.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, community service, 200 hours, and 40 hours of order to attend a law-abiding driving lecture) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

가. 사실오인과 법리오해 주장에 대한 판단 1 앞이 보이지 않아 안전을 위하여 정차한 것이라는 주장에 대한 판단 원심이 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, 피해자 D이 피고인 차량의 뒤를 따라가면서 상향등을 4차례 켠 사실이 인정된다.

However, according to the following circumstances admitted by the evidence, it cannot be deemed that the defendant stops the vehicle due to the absence of prior notice.

This part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

The victim D did not turn back continuously from the vehicle behind the defendant's vehicle, but moves down behind the defendant's vehicle.