The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) The Defendant was unable to recognize the fact that the damaged person at the time of the instant case was taking a back of the front left of the vehicle, and thus, the Defendant cannot be found to have had the intent to injure the victim.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination 1) The Defendant made the same assertion in the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts.

For the following reasons, the lower court: (a) recognized the Defendant’s negligence at the time of the instant case and inflicted injury on the victim; (b)

The decision was determined.

① At the time of the instant case, the victim obstructed the Defendant’s vehicle by blocking the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant proceeded to the left-hand side of the vehicle rapidly, and the victimized person was able to take the back side of the back of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant appears to have sufficiently confirmed such situation through the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

2. When a victim kicks a vehicle on the back of the steering side of the vehicle, the Defendant stopped the vehicle.

③ Since then, the Defendant continued to operate the vehicle under the influence of the Defendant’s hand on the hand of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(4) The defendant shall state his/her statement to the effect that he/she was aware of the fact that he/she was unable to see the side where the victim was a victim, with the knowledge that he/she might fl

However, since the vehicle of the defendant at the time was not operated by another vehicle due to the direction of the vehicle of the defendant at the time, it seems that there is no reason to not confirm the situation only with the chief side of the victim.

⑤ At the time of the instant case, the Defendant had experienced conflict between the Defendant and the Defendant due to the furnishment of his parent. At the same time, his mother, who was the victim, was on the Defendant’s vehicle, was in the situation where the Defendant was frightened by the victim who discovered that he was frighten, thereby blocking the vehicle.

In light of these circumstances, the injured person is the vehicle.