Defendant

A All appeals filed against the Defendants by the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the taxi that Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts) driven by Defendant A was faced with the victim, the negligence of the Defendant on the occurrence of the instant accident cannot be recognized.

In addition, since the defendant is expected to get off the taxi at the time of the instant case, police officers and defendant B already take relief measures against victims. Thus, the defendant did not take any measures any longer, and thus, he left the taxi site as it is for the purpose of getting the taxi passengers to the destination. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant falls under the escape.

B. Each sentence of the court below against the Defendants (unfair sentencing) is unfair because the prosecutor's each sentence of the court below against the Defendants (defendant A: 3 years of the suspension of execution in two and half years of imprisonment; 160 hours of community service; 40 hours of compliance driving; 2 years of the suspension of execution in October; 40 hours of compliance driving; 40 hours of compliance driving) is too unfford.

2. Determination

A. Although Defendant A also asserted the same purport as the original judgment, the lower court rejected Defendant A’s assertion with detailed reasons as indicated in its reasoning.

The lower court acknowledged that the instant primary accident (after Defendant A’s shocked the victim, the secondary accident that Defendant B shocked the victim occurred) occurred due to Defendant A’s negligence, while being aware of the occurrence of the instant primary accident, and that the said Defendant, while leaving the scene of the accident, brought about a situation in which it is impossible to determine who was the person who caused the accident.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is justified.

Defendant

A’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. The Defendants’ wrongful assertion of sentencing occurred due to negligence, such as over-speed driving, etc. of the Defendants, and the Defendant A escaped as it is, even if having caused an accident by his own negligence, and did not receive a letter from the victims’ bereaved family members.