All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The place where the instant traffic accident occurred by misapprehending the legal principles (as to Defendants 1) and (as to the injury caused by each occupational negligence to the victim H, I, J, and K, the location at which the instant traffic accident occurred is a road of 110 km speed per hour at the maximum speed limit, and at the time, the road condition at the time was “the state in which melted and melted are milked without piling up,” and thus, it does not constitute a sense of operation under Article 19(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act.

Therefore, the proviso of Article 4(1)1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 3(2)3 of the proviso of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents does not fall under the case of operating a vehicle at a speed exceeding 20 km per hour pursuant to Article 17(1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act, and the Defendants are subscribed to each comprehensive insurance, so the judgment dismissing each of the facts charged against the Defendants should be sentenced.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting each of the charges is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case’s unfair sentencing, each sentence (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 10 million, Defendant B’s imprisonment without prison labor for one year, a suspended sentence of two years, and community service for 80 hours) that the lower court sentenced to the Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the prosecutor’s (unfair sentencing for Defendant A)’s negligence, the degree of damage caused thereby, and the absence of agreement with the victims other than the victim G, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below against Defendant A is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendants’ assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, in particular, the provision of black picture pictures and weather data, weather weather calendar, and the delivery of a traffic accident analysis report, etc., the surface was milch at the time of the instant accident. At the time, Defendant A, at the time, operated at a speed of about 117 km in Si speed and about 119 km in Si speed.