The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the traffic accident of this case by mistake of facts occurred due to the victim's negligence, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and finding guilty of the facts charged in violation of the Road Traffic Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the accident of this case can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant temporarily stops in the course of the operation of the damaged vehicle in a narrow channel with the damaged vehicle or carried on to the right-hand side of the vehicle, thereby failing to fulfill his duty of due care to prevent the occurrence of the accident. Thus, even if the damaged vehicle, as alleged by the defendant, was not at the time of the accident, and it contributed to the occurrence of the accident of this case and the expansion of damages therefrom, such circumstance is merely an element to be considered in determining the punishment against the defendant, and there is no obstacle to recognizing the guilty guilty of the charge of the violation of the Road Traffic Act.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

1) The victim consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below to the effect that “the victim was consistently trying to discover the ozone layer of the defendant who was the Roman and stopped on one side of the vehicle, but the defendant continued to view only his left-hand side, and even if he saw the light, the defendant continued to run the accident of this case.” 2) Gambling from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, which is the first instance, of the victim who was driving behind the damaged vehicle at the time, is consistently following the victim’s vehicle from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below, and the damaged vehicle stopped and stopped, and the defendant thereafter several seconds.