A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant was engaged in the research and development business of D Co., Ltd., and the driver was in charge of other employees, but the employee in charge of the driver’s operation on the day of the instant accident was rapidly in a situation where plastic plug was set up, and thus, the Defendant driven the vehicle on behalf of the Defendant. Thus, the driver’s operation on the part of the Defendant cannot be deemed as the Defendant’s business.

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

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle, the term "business in the crime of occupational negligence or death" means the business continuously engaged in as a single position in the social life of a person, and there is no separate experience or legal license for the business repeated or actual.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (1) there are two or more vehicles for the owner, (2) there are employees in charge of the owner's driving, (3) there are two production tasks, and (4) there are other employees in charge of the owner's driving, (2) there are situations where all employees in D receive education for the owner's driving, (4) the company received safety education necessary for the owner's driving, (3) the defendant driven the owner's driver's driving prior to the accident in this case, and (4) there are facts that the owner has driven the owner's driver's driving prior to the accident in this case.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant: (a) laid away a lelett while moving a lane; and (b) laid down the lelet on the 4th anniversary of the lelet that requires three weeks medical treatment; and (c) recovered from damage.