The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the background leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident, degree of damage, and the occurrence of the instant accident, the Defendant did not recognize that the instant accident was in violation of the signal, and that there was no intention to commit an escape, since the Defendant did not recognize that the instant accident was in violation of the signal.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, and forty hours of attending the compliance driving lecture) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel in the judgment of the court below, claiming the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case.

In addition to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, it is reasonable to view that the defendant committed occupational negligence in red-fluence, and there is a proximate causal relation between the defendant's occupational negligence and the accident of this case, and that the defendant was aware that the victim was injured by the accident of this case due to the violation of his signal.

Therefore, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and there is no error of misconception of facts.

1) Inasmuch as there is a proximate causal relationship between the Defendant’s occupational negligence and the instant accident, not only is the case where the Defendant’s negligence did not cause the result of the victim’s thought, but also where there was another fact, such as the victim or a third party’s negligence, etc., between the Defendant’s act and the result, if such fact is ordinarily foreseeable, a proximate causal relationship may be acknowledged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do2082, Jun. 10, 2016).