The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact, the Defendant, a driver of the vehicle, could not have anticipated that the victim would have been at the location of the instant accident, and did not have to work in accordance with the direction of the signal number without securing the view. Therefore, the instant accident could not be predicted or avoided.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized the defendant's occupational injury and convicted him of the crime of injury caused by occupational injury. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment without prison labor) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of all the evidence of this case, the prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, despite the existence of the causal relationship between the defendant's negligence and the victim's death, the court below did not recognize the causal relationship between the defendant's negligence and the victim's death.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant loaded steel at the site of the instant accident at least 6 parts at the time of the instant accident, although the Defendant did not load at least 4 parts of steel at ordinary level; (b) the Defendant loaded steel at the time of the instant accident at the time of the instant accident; and (c) the Defendant did not have any part of steel exceeding 4 parts stored at the time of the instant accident, as it did not have to be seen that the steel was stored at the time of the instant accident.

In light of the fact that the Defendant made a statement, (2) the Defendant is obliged to load steel products in a way that does not leave the field, and even if he had been tried by the signal number instructions, he is seen to have accumulated steel products more than two parts or higher than normal. In light of the fact that the Defendant is obliged to load steel products in a way that does not leave the field.