All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant A1’s violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) Defendant was driving on the front side of the vehicle, but an accident occurred due to the course of the vehicle without any choice on the left side of the victim H, crossinging the road to the left side of the vehicle without permission, in order to avoid a collision with the victim H.

Therefore, the instant traffic accident is not caused by the invasion of the central line, but by the victim's unauthorized crossing, and the Defendant breached any duty of care.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Thus, this part of the facts charged is a case that should be dismissed because it is not guilty or agreed with the victim in the original trial.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the instant traffic accident was an accident due to the Defendant’s mistake, and thus, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the driver’s duty of care, etc.

2) As to occupational and occupational death (misunderstanding of legal principles), the Defendant placed night workers at night in operating a sanatorium and thoroughly instructed and supervised the Defendant to prevent the occurrence of any danger to ordinary people, there is any negligence on the part of the Defendant in managing inmates.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, so the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty of care of the proprietor of a sanatorium.

3) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment without prison labor, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s punishment (including six months of imprisonment without prison labor, one year of probation, one year of community service order, 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A1’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine [1’s A-A-1-2], the Defendant is also identical to the lower court.