The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not escape without any relief measures at the time of the instant case, and there was no intention to escape, and since the Defendant was faced with the victim's vehicle at the time of the instant case, the Defendant was at the time of the instant accident, so long as it was impossible for the Defendant to anticipate or avoid this, there was no occupational negligence as to the wife suffered by the victim.

In addition, the injured party's wife suffered from the accident of this case is a minor wound to the extent possible to recover nature, and it cannot be viewed as an injury under the Criminal Act, and it cannot be viewed as a case requiring relief measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant and his defense counsel argued that in the original judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant and his defense counsel argued to the effect that "the defendant was faced with the defendant's vehicle where the victim was stopped, so there was no negligence," and that "the defendant was fine" to the victim and the female with the defendant, but there was no intention of escape because the female with the victim was fine, and the defendant was deprived of the defendant's hand, and the defendant was deprived of his hand." Accordingly, the court below explained in detail about various circumstances recognized by the relevant legal principles and evidence in the 7th and 8th 7th 7th 1 of the judgment and the 8th 8th 194 of the judgment, and the accident in this case occurred due to negligence in violation of the duty of care to ensure the safety of the defendant's past course without taking measures as prescribed in Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.