The sixty-five days, from among those pending trial after the appeal, shall be included in the principal sentence.

The argument that there is a mistake of facts in the original judgment by denying the crime is not a legitimate ground for appeal. Article 23 of the Automobile Transport Business Act provides that the matters to be observed by the automobile transport businessman, the driver of the automobile for business, and the employees engaged in assistance in the operation of the automobile shall be prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport in order to ensure the convenience of passengers, and the legislative matters shall be delegated to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and Transportation, and Article 35 subparagraph 5 of the Regulations on Transport, such as the Automobile Transport Business, which is the Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport delegated to the Ministry of Transport and Transportation, provides that the bus shall confirm that there is no danger to the safety of passengers and shall make the signal of the bus after closing the door of the entrance, and the defendant shall be a person who falls under the deputy head of the above Act and subordinate head of the above Act. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below which held that the defendant's act of causing injury to the passenger without confirming the safety of the passenger on board, which is the victim, shall not meet the so-called crime of injury by occupational negligence.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act.

Justices Seo-gu et al. (Presiding Justice)