Comprehensively taking account of the evidence listed in the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident are as follows. In other words, it is required that, when the defendant drives a truck at the speed of 20 kilometers a speed of speed, the abnormal iron, which is the victim, was left away on the left-hand side and left-hand side of the above vehicle, and was left away from the ground and left-hand side, and thus, the above victim could not be seen to have been able to board in advance. Accordingly, the record was examined in detail, and there is no violation of documentary evidence in the process of recognizing this fact by the court below. It is just that the court below held that the Defendant was not guilty, and therefore, the judgment of the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on occupational negligence.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is groundless. Thus, this appeal is dismissed as prescribed by Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Net Sheet