A. Defendant B’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

(2) In order for the Defendant to have a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of an accident by taking necessary measures to prevent the danger in the instant lower work, the Defendant must have a duty of detailed direction and supervision of the instant lower work, in order to ensure that the Defendant has a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of an accident by taking measures to prevent the danger in the instant lower work.

However, at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the Defendant did not instruct the victim or co-defendant A to drive a small lane or allow him to do so, so the Defendant did not have a duty of care to direct and supervise the instant sub-operation and to prevent the occurrence of the accident.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions of the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing in this case, the lower court’s punishment (a fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In the case of Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it is not the sole cause for the result of the Defendant’s act. Therefore, not only the case where a third party’s act was involved but also the case where a victim was negligent, it does not interfere with the establishment of the crime. However, the victim’s negligence of contribution can be considered as sentencing materials.

In light of the above legal principles, the victim was at fault when the victim gets off the panel as the defendant's argument.