The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and by a fine of 300,000 won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the defendant A), although the defendant A could fully recognize the fact that the victims suffered injury by causing a traffic accident, and at the same time, they did not take any measures even after destroying the taxi, and that the defendant A escaped without taking any measures, the court acquitted the defendant A of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (as to the violation of the

In addition, even though Defendant A did not commit a crime of non-compliance under Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents by causing traffic accidents and causing injury to the victims while driving under influence of alcohol, the court below dismissed the prosecution on the ground of the victims' intent not to punish the victims of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which is included in the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the above facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (defendant A: the imprisonment of August 2, 200, the fine of 300,000 won, the community service order of 80 hours, the order of 40 hours, the order of attending education for 40 hours, the defendant B: the imprisonment of June 2, the probation period of 2 years, the fine of 30,000 won, the probation, and the community service order of 80 hours is too uneasible.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the following circumstances, namely, the vehicle driven by Defendant A (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) shocked the backer of the taxi driven by the Victim K (hereinafter “victimed vehicle”), which was stopped by the stop signal, and the victim K sustained the backer of the taxi driven by the stop signal.