A. The court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case in the absence of a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, since the Defendant was in operation within the restricted speed at the time of the instant case and continued to pass through the speed or method that may cause danger and harm to others. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 150,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is based on the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant’s allegation of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, i.e., another speed-prevention threshold immediately before the speed-prevention threshold (hereinafter “the first speed-prevention threshold

(2) According to CCTV images, when passing through the instant over-speed, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant passes through the instant over-speed without any speed, and ② According to CCTV images, when passing through the instant over-speed, the bus is shaking below the above, and it is confirmed that the bus traffic is considerably shaking when passing through the instant over-speed; ③ the Defendant appears to have gone through the instant over-speed prevention; but the Defendant appears to have gone through the instant over-speed prevention; but, in light of the fact that it appears that the bus was under the influence of the Defendant, while passing through the instant over-speed prevention, it seems that the Defendant’s failure to properly reduce the bus would have driven through the instant over-speed and a high probability of causing danger and harm to other persons, such as passengers beyond the mere incidental or inappropriate degree, and that the first instance court duly adopted and investigated the aforementioned circumstances and the first instance court’s evidence.