A. The instant traffic accident of misunderstanding of facts is that the victims' negligence not operating a bicycle lane and the Defendant's negligence concurrently result in a serious result.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year’s imprisonment without labor) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts is based on each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, that is, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, i.e., ① the bicycle procession was not operated on the bicycle lane at the time of the accident but was normally operated on the side side of the third-lane, ② the restriction speed of the road of this case was 70km/h. The speed of the road of this case was approximately 117km/h. At the time of the vehicle driving by the defendant, ③ The vehicle driving at the time of the accident of this case was around 117km, ③ the vehicle driving route of this case was moved from the third-lane to the second-lane and the second-lane but is not in the form of normal operation, such as re-transfer from the second-lane to the third-lane, etc.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. The lower court, on the assertion of unfair sentencing, seems to have rendered an adequate sentence (one year without prison labor) considering all the factors of sentencing, including the Defendant’s primary offender, the passenger car driven by the Defendant was subscribed to a comprehensive insurance, favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s agreement with the victims and their bereaved family members, the Defendant’s violation of the duty of care in this case, the fact that two persons die, etc. due to the accident in this case, and other disadvantageous circumstances, such as the injury to human life, such as death, etc., and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, the background of the instant crime, means and method of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., and

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is justified.