All the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for four months.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) The instant accident was caused by the negligence in the course of performing duties of G, which is a driver of the next vehicle, and the Defendants were not negligent in violating the duty of care related to the loading and unloading work.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the injury caused by business negligence among the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

2) The punishment (Defendant A: June of imprisonment without prison labor; Defendant B; 6 months of imprisonment without prison labor; 2 years of suspended execution) sentenced by the lower court against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, even though the victim’s refusal to blood transfusion could be recognized as having a substantial causal relationship between the negligence of the Defendants and the victim’s death, the victim’s refusal to blood transfusion does not have a substantial causal relationship between the negligence

The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendants asserted that the aforementioned grounds for appeal are the same, even in the lower court, on the part of the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s misunderstandings.

As to this, the lower court, in full view of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, found that the Defendants’ negligence in the course of performing their duties could recognize the fact that

Based on its judgment, the Defendants rejected the above assertion.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is rejected.

2) The lower court determined whether the Defendants’ negligence and the victim’s death exist with respect to the existence of a causal relationship.