The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles led to the occurrence of the instant accident, which led to the occurrence of the occurrence of the instant accident, even though the victim was well aware of the fact that the instant opening was dead at ordinary times and even though he was aware of the fact that the instant opening was dead.

At the time of opening the opening of the victim, the defendant has been making best efforts to prevent the above accident, such as by unfolding so far, so there is any breach of duty of care against the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On June 14, 2016, the Defendant: (a) neglected to perform the duty of care to make the opening management so as not to harm others while being able to do so on the road in front of the Namyang-si, Namyang-si; and (b) caused the said opening to the victim D’s two buckbucks where the said opening was in operation, thereby causing the victim to suffer injury, such as the multiple dives of the parts on the right side before discharge on the right side, which requires treatment for about three weeks.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

(c)

A thorough examination of the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the court below's decision and the court below's decision, the defendant's negligence of neglecting the duty to manage the opening of this case and caused the victim's injury to the victim can be fully recognized.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is justifiable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is not accepted.

3. Regarding the unfair argument of sentencing.