가. 사실 오인 내지 법리 오해 1) 이 사건 공소 사실상 과실은 ‘ 피고인에게 전방 좌우를 잘 살피면서 안전하게 운전하여 사고를 미연에 방지하여야 할 업무상 주의의무가 있었음에도 이를 게을리 한 채 그대로 진행하였다’ 는 것인데, 원심판결상 과실은 ‘ 피고인이 피해자에게 각목을 완전히 댔는지 여부 및 지게 차가 전진해도 안전상 아무런 문제가 없는지 여부를 피해자를 통하여 미리 확인한 후에야 지게차를 전진할 주의의무가 있다고

The judgment of the court below is contrary to the principle of unfavorable and unfavorable nature by recognizing the contents different from the facts charged without any modification of the indictment.

2) The Defendant got the victim to get the victim to move to a thing in which he gets the victim to move to another thing. The Defendant was determined to have been prepared as a fixed person by making the victim grow to the thing for a few seconds and maintaining the thing in the state, and the preparation was completed. Thus, the Defendant was not negligent in driving the vehicle on the part of the Defendant.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no possibility of causing substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of the defendant's right of defense as to the alleged violation of the principle of no mistake or law, it may not be deemed as violating the principle of no and unfavorable treatment even if it is somewhat different from the facts charged within the scope of the identity of the basic fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do153, Nov. 13, 1990). The court below recognized the same content as the facts charged in the instant case as criminal facts, and added new evidence to the summary of the evidence in the reasoning of the judgment, and then, “driving service is engaged in driving service.”