The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The instant accident was not caused by the Defendant’s occupational negligence.

B. The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of the suspension of the execution of six months’ imprisonment without prison labor, one year of the community service order, and 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the evidence examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A) The Defendant continued 147.7 km speed from the 70km section at a speed limit.

B) In the instant accident, the victim suffered bodily injury, such as the pelvis of the right-side executives in need of approximately 8 weeks medical treatment.

C) According to the results of the factual inquiry into North Korea branch of the Road Traffic Authority, it is presumed that the Defendant was aware of the danger from the point of collision at approximately 53.7 to 66 meters after the collision, in general, if the driver is assumed at the beginning of 0.7 to 1.0 seconds and the running speed of 147.7km/h (the speed of Defendant’s vehicle) with the speed of 147.7km.

In the event the Defendant’s vehicle driven 70km/h, the Defendant’s vehicle was driven at approximately 13.61~19.44m, the official residence rate of approximately 13.61m, and the brake distance of approximately 24.1m, when applying the Minch coefficient (emergencyly operated household), is about 24.1m, so the stop distance is approximately 37.72-43.5m.

Even according to the results of a factual reply to the National Scientific Investigation Institute, when the defendant's vehicle was operated, about 29.5m in the front of the collision zone. If the defendant's vehicle was driven at about 70 km/h, the limit of the vehicle would be about 24m if the same distance is applied to 0.8m in the Mug coefficient.

According to the results of each factual inquiry, if the defendant gets at a limited speed, it is presumed that the victim could have been able to stop prior to the point of collision when the victim came to the left at the center of the central line.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the details and details of the instant accident, road conditions at the time of the accident, and the circumstances after the accident, etc., occupational negligence, such as failure to observe the Defendant’s limited speed, is invaded by the central line.