The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In the case of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant entered a BAR car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), but did not drive the instant vehicle on the ground that it cannot be known, the instant vehicle was driven by the bus, and the accident occurred due to the reason that it was not known, and the Defendant was out of the site of the instant vehicle due to explosion, and the Defendant did not escape without taking any measures after the occurrence of the accident with the bus.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(1) As stated in this part of the facts charged, the defendant in relation to the case No. 2020 Godan4111 is recognized to have brought about the goods as stated in this part of the facts charged, but this was to communicate with the police officers, so there was no intention of larceny or illegal acquisition, and the defendant merely spawn off the unmanned promptly with his/her will to use it as soon as possible, and without good cause, the defendant is merely spawn away from the unmanned bank without good cause.

It does not comply with the Gu.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(2) The Defendant involved in the instant case No. 2020 Man-Ma3717 did not associate with this part of the facts charged, and the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have proved this part of the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(3) The court below's imprisonment with labor (one year and two months) is too unreasonable.

The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the first argument on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the instant vehicle.