The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In a case where an appeal is filed against a judgment of conviction regarding the scope of the trial in this Court and the compensation order, the compensation order is transferred to the appellate court along with the accused case (Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings). The part which the court accepted the application of the compensation order by the applicant for compensation by the applicant for compensation by the defendant was not finalized

However, the defendant did not assert any grounds for appeal against the cited portion of the compensation order by the court below, and there is no ground for revocation or alteration of the cited portion of the compensation order by the court below ex officio. Thus, it should be maintained as it is.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the facts charged in the case of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not have occupational negligence on the part of the Defendant, inasmuch as there was a traffic accident resulting from the Defendant’s vehicle conjection while driving a U.S. in the opposite part without properly confirming that the Defendant’s vehicle would vary, and thus, the Defendant did not have occupational negligence.

(2) The defendant had no intention to flee.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Comprehensively taking into account the following facts acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court, the Defendant was obliged to safely drive the instant vehicle in front of the instant intersection where the U-turn was ordinarily located, and even if the Defendant had a duty of care to safely drive the vehicle in front of the instant intersection, the Defendant’s vehicle was in front of the entrance into the intersection even though the Defendant’s vehicle had been trying for the U-turn in front of the road before entering the intersection, but without reducing speed, is the victim’s vehicle through occupational negligence.