The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is true that a misunderstanding of the legal principle is true that a defendant conducted a vehicle in violation of the speed limit.

However, as the defendant is proceeding in accordance with the new code, he was expected to enter the intersection by disregarding the signal that the victim driven, and there was no duty of care to take measures to prevent the occurrence of the accident.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, although the Defendant did not have a duty of care and thus cannot be held liable for occupational and actual death.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment without prison labor, two years of suspended sentence, two years of suspended sentence, and community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle on the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Death) in order to recognize the defendant's occupational negligence and the relation between the defendant's occupational negligence and the victim's death (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5389, Jun. 12, 2008). The defendant cannot be exempted from liability for traffic accident on the ground that the traffic accident did not occur due to the defendant's gross negligence but the victim's negligence concurrently occurred (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1974, Jun. 28, 2007). In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below duly adopted and investigated by evidence, although the victim's gross negligence competes with the victim's occupational negligence, the relationship between the defendant's occupational negligence and the victim's death, and therefore, it cannot be found that there was a misunderstanding of the legal principle as alleged in the facts charged.

A) The Defendant’s speed exceeds 49km.