The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The instant traffic accident was caused by occupational negligence by the Defendant’s sudden change in order to make a U-turn.

It is rather likely that the fault of the victim who did not give a proper view to the prior bank and did not contribute more to the fault of the victim.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year’s imprisonment without prison labor) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Since the crime of death or injury caused by occupational or occupational negligence as stipulated in Article 268 of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of mistake of fact is an aggravated crime, in order to establish the above crime, there must be considerable relation between the act of breach of duty of care and the result of thought, and it should be possible to anticipate the occurrence of result at the time of the act.

In addition, if the act of breach of duty of care is one of the only causes of the victim's thought or a direct cause, not only is it possible to anticipate such fact if there are other facts, such as negligence of the victim or a third party, between such act and the result, and if the risk resulting from the act of breach of duty of care is realized as the result of death or injury, it may be recognized as a considerable relation with the person (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do6206, Jul. 24, 2014, etc.). Based on the above legal principles, the health stand in this case, which is recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the traffic accident in this case occurred in the process of changing the vehicle into a one lane in which the defendant is prohibited from driving a two-lane, and the traffic accident in this case occurred in the course of changing the two-lane to a one-lane road into a one-lane road. ② The defendant entered the two-lane road in this case to enter the two-lane road in this case.