The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 8,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (the part concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) was committed by the Defendant on the side of the fence of the Student Welfare Center in the event immediately after the accident was driven, and the accident did not deviate from the scene of the accident, and there was no intention of escape.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged pertaining to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) are those engaged in driving of CF (EF

On August 7, 2013, the Defendant driven the above vehicle on August 7, 2013, and proceeded with a private distance from the Japanese High School in a fixed Eup and a fixed Eup and a fixed Eup.

Since there was an intersection where traffic signal, etc. is installed, the defendant engaged in driving service has a duty of care to observe the signal and to prevent the traffic accident by driving the above vehicle in a clean mental condition.

Nevertheless, the part on the back side of the victim D(55 years old)-on-road taxi, which was proceeding in accordance with the direction-based traffic signal, was taken into account as the front part of the instant small-type taxi, by neglecting this and neglecting it, and by neglecting it, violating and proceedinging a stop traffic signal while under the influence of 0.198% of alcohol content, from the point of view that the above intersection was in line with the direction-based traffic signal.

As a result, the Defendant would be the victim F (25 years of age) who was on board a damaged vehicle with salt and tension that requires a victim D treatment for about two weeks.