All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) On-the-spot verification by the court below is difficult to believe the result due to the failure of Creins in preventing collision, and according to the relevant evidence, it cannot be ruled out that the victim himself/herself could die due to the mistake of Creins. Thus, the court below found Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the premise that Creins, which the Defendant operated, conflict with Creins, operated by the victim. This judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court (five months of imprisonment without prison labor and one year of suspended execution) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

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

가. 원심의 판단 원심은, ㉠ 현장 검증 당시 직접 체험한 두 크레인간의 충돌 음 크기는 현장에서의 지속적 소음으로 인하여 특별한 주의를 기울이지 않는 한 듣지 못할 수도 있는 정도 여서 충돌 소리를 들은 사람이 없을 수 있는 점, ㉡ 현장 검증 결과 두 크레인 충돌 시 최소한 66cm 가 밀려 피해자가 협착될 수 있는 점, ㉢ 피해자의 리모컨 오작동만으로 이 사건 사망사고가 발생할 가능성은 희박한 점, ㉣ 피고인은 검찰에서 “ 조작할 때에는 AC054 크레인이 그곳에 없었는데, 주행 중 갑자기 AC054 크레인이 옆에 있길래 ’ 어‘ 하면서 조작하던 리모컨 스위치에서 손을 뗐다.

It is true that “AC057 is operated to move to AC054 straws without discovering AC054 straws.”

“AC057 Cickers measured at the close time from the date of the accident and at the time of the collision prevention consensus that the work person who works at least at the same time did not have been able to properly perform the duty to confirm the direction of the safe driving of the unmanned, which must be observed as a matter of course.