The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Trackers who were the accused of mistake of fact did not intrude the central line.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant's Track has invadedd the central line.

The decision is judged.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's assertion of mistake of the above facts.

(1) The analysis of the instant accident conducted by the Gyeongbuk-do branch of the Road Traffic Authority is likely to intrude the central line of the defendant's Trackers and the truck of damaged persons.

described therein.

② If the Defendant’s Track did not frank the median line at all as alleged by the Defendant, the victim’s truck was fluored with the Defendant’s Trackeded to the opposite to the Defendant’s Track. Taking account of the fact that the date and time of the instant accident was low and the victim was particularly driving alcohol, it is difficult to accept it in light of empirical rule.

③ The fact that there is a trace of the brakes created on the right side of the victim’s truck means that the victim immediately wraped. If the defendant’s track does not attack the center line, there is no reason to make the victim quickly wrap.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the victim’s truck was partially invadedd by the central line, and the Defendant did not have the same criminal history.

However, the defendant was injured by the central scam on the part of the victim (not less than 4 weeks), and the defendant made no particular effort to recover human and material damage to the victim, and the defendant's track is not covered by insurance.

In addition, the defendant has already been given a summary order.