The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for a period of one and half years.

However, for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles cannot be deemed to have caused the instant accident by the Defendant by breaking a central line, and since there was no time to take measures to prevent the accident, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was negligent in relation to the said accident.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment without prison labor) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant can be sufficiently convicted of the defendant as to the facts charged in this case, including the fact that the victim was aboard the central line while driving a vehicle in violation of the duty of care stated in the facts charged in this case. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. We examine the argument of unfair sentencing. The crime of this case was committed by two juveniles due to traffic accidents, which resulted in their death, and in light of its nature and circumstances. However, the defendant was a primary offender who has no record of criminal punishment, and the victim E does not use a fitness in the state of under the influence of alcohol 0.106% without the driver's license (the net victim F does not use the fitness) without using it (the network victim F does not use it). The head of the dynasium broken down over the central line during the new wall time period and driving the dynasium, and the accident of this case occurred. In light of the circumstances, the victim's negligence was very significant; the victim was covered by comprehensive insurance; the victim was covered by a comprehensive insurance policy; the defendant deposited his fault in depth; the defendant deposited a total of KRW 40 million equivalent to one of his own property for the bereaved family members; and the victim's act and behavior, the defendant's age, motive, means and circumstances after the crime, as well as various conditions after the crime.