The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

가. 사실오인 피고인이 피해자를 태워 체험비행을 마치고 착륙을 시도할 무렵, 바람의 방향이 배풍(背風, 비행방향의 뒤쪽에서 불어오는 바람)으로 바뀌었다.

On the other hand, at the point where the defendant planned to land, the cargo car driven by I (vehicles to board customers) has been driving.

There is no situation.

(In the case, there is a risk of collision with the cargo vehicle, etc.) and if the defendant operated the body in the landing attempt to avoid collision with the vehicle and changed the landing direction, the accident occurred that led to the failure to maintain the flight due to the decrease of the real speed and the increase of the resistance power, and the occurrence of a large number of accidents. Therefore, the defendant was forced to attempt to land in the direction of the proceeding without any choice in the process.

Therefore, the Defendant, as a package trading pilot, was landing at the best discretion in light of the flight situation at the time, and there was no violation of the duty of care.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (five million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The facts charged in the judgment below and the summary of the facts charged in the instant case are those who, as a package trading pilot, have taken over customers recruited by C from D, a company substantially operated by C, and are engaged in the business of directly performing experience flight by getting customers on board a single-sloak factory.

At around 17:50 on July 29, 2015, the Defendant, at the active plant located in the Chungcheongbuk-gun E, had the Victim F (F, 47 years of age) conduct crowdfunding experience.

There is a risk of ordinary safety accidents and experience flight is not or low.