The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are likely to lead the Defendant to drive the vehicle at a speed exceeding 20 km per hour prior to entering the intersection.

However, the defendant was driving at less than 80 km per hour at the time when there is a causal relationship with the traffic accident, that is, at the time of discovering the damaged vehicle bypassing to the intersection.

In addition, the instant traffic accident occurred due to the rapid change of the lane on the one-lane immediately after the damaged vehicle was rounded. Therefore, there is no causal relationship between the driving of the vehicle at a speed exceeding 20 km per hour by the defendant, the occurrence of the traffic accident, and the injury of the victims.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that there is a proximate causal relationship between the defendant's act and the result of injury.

B. In light of the Defendant’s reflect on unreasonable sentencing, the degree of negligence on the part of the victim, the damage inflicted by the Defendant, and the relationship of criminal record, etc., the lower court’s punishment (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, since the crime of death or injury by occupational negligence as stipulated in Article 268 of the Criminal Act is an aggravated crime, there is a proximate causal relation between the act of breach of duty of care and the result of thought in order to establish the above crime, and it should be possible to anticipate the occurrence of the result at the time of the act.

In addition, if the act of breach of duty of care is not limited to the only one which caused the result of the victim's thought or a direct cause, but it is ordinarily foreseeable that the act of violation of duty of care includes another fact such as negligence of the victim or a third party between the act and the result, and if the risk resulting from the act of breach of duty of care is realized as the result of ideas, it is reasonable to proximate causal relation.