The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The date and time of the instant accident is not around 4:00 on January 17, 2015, but around 23:00 on January 16, 2015.

In addition, the accident location of this case is an intersection without a central line, and it does not fall under Article 3 (2) proviso 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, because it is not an accident of the central line.

In addition, the accident of this case is merely the case where two vehicles are faced with each other even, and it cannot be recognized that the victims suffered the injury of two weeks.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s judgment that convicted the Defendant is acceptable, and there is an error of law by misconception of facts alleged by the Defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① First, we examine the date of the instant accident.

A victim D consistently committed an accident of this case from an investigative agency to the court of the court below at least 4:00 on January 17, 2015.

The witness G of the lower court also stated that the instant accident occurred at the time when 10-20 minutes elapsed since he worked around 4:00 on January 17, 2015.

On January 16, 2015, the time of occurrence of the instant accident is not around 23:00, as claimed by the Defendant, but around 4:00 on January 17, 2015 recognized by the lower court.

(2) Next, we examine whether the defendant gets involved in driving a vehicle over the center line.

The victim D consistently stated from the time of the initial report to the police, to the testimony from the court of the original trial, that “the victim, while proceeding along the four-lane road from the end point of the J pharmacy to the end point of the backway, the Defendant’s vehicle intrudes on the center line, thereby conflicting with the victim’s vehicle.”

Defendant

(c) vehicles;