A. Defendant 1) Fact misunderstanding and legal principles did not violate the signal at the time of the instant traffic accident, and even if the Defendant violated family signal, there was no relation between Defendant’s occupational negligence and the victim’s death, and even if not, the Defendant was not able to avoid the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, and thus, the Defendant should be acquitted on the Defendant. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution in August and eight hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the Defendant and his defense counsel alleged that there was no fact that the Defendant violated the signal at the original instance, and even if there was a violation of the signal, there was no relation between the negligence in violation of the signal and the instant traffic accident. The lower court explained on the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence in the lower court’s holding in conduct No. 18 through No. 9 on the 2nd 18th 3rd 3rd 3rd 1 of the said judgment, and in full view of such circumstances, the Defendant was at fault of violating the signal, such as

the victim who entered the instant intersection in violation of the signal does not deny the relationship with the victim, even if there is gross negligence in the occurrence of the instant traffic accident or in the expansion of the damage.

In determining that the defendant and his defense counsel are all rejected.

The judgment below

Examining the text closely by comparing it with the records, we agree with this fact-finding and judgment of the court below.

B. The court below held that A.I.D.