The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant did not have a duty of care to anticipate the rapid change of the vehicle vehicle from the third vehicle to the first vehicle line operated by E. Therefore, the victim of the instant traffic accident is merely the victim of the instant traffic accident, and the Defendant is liable to take measures after an accident under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act by the victim of the traffic accident.

subsection (b) of this section.

Nevertheless, the lower court which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the health team and the Prosecutor’s “part below this case’s charges” in the facts charged in the instant case was changed to a three-lane road in the direction of Defendant’s proceeding, and the lane was changed to a one-lane.

E Driving

FK 3 The upper part of the upper part of the car was the front part of the Defendant vehicle's right side.

A vehicle driven by E in the foregoing accident is destroyed to the extent that the repair cost would be approximately KRW 1,189,791, and stopped on the road. In addition, even though the front part of the vehicle was sitting down and non-products are far away on the road, the Defendant immediately stopped the vehicle and left the site without taking necessary measures for restoring traffic order, such as informing the police officer of the occurrence of the traffic accident.

“Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment was filed,” and the subject of the adjudication was changed by this court’s permission, and the judgment of the court below became unable to be maintained as it is.

B. Although there is a ground for ex officio reversal of the legal doctrine as seen above, the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine still becomes subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the modified facts charged.