A. The instant accident of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is an inevitable accident even though the Defendant fulfilled his duty of care required for the work.

In other words, it is difficult to view that the defendant has a duty of care to consider measures to prevent accidents in advance by predicting that the passengers who borrowed from the defendant, like in this case, go beyond the floor of the lane in which the bus is in operation.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the defendant has such duty of care as above and that the defendant has been negligent is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment without prison labor and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant argued to the same effect as the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal doctrine.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the accident in this case occurred due to negligence in violation of the above duty of care, on the premise that the defendant, a village bus driver, has a duty of care to prevent traffic accidents by checking and driving the front side of the road properly, and that the defendant, a village bus driver, has a duty of care to leave the right side of the roadway at the bus stop and to safely leave the bus at the bus stop and to start the bus after checking the passenger's safely going on the bus stop.

The above judgment of the court below is duly adopted and closely examined by comparison with the evidence examined. The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it is identical with the defendant's assertion.