The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for eight months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The occurrence of the instant accident by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles did not lead to negligence on the Defendant, and even if the Defendant was negligent, there was no causal relationship between the Defendant’s negligence and the victim’s death.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (hereinafter imprisonment without prison labor for eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged to the same purport in the lower court’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the lower court rejected all of the Defendant’s arguments on the grounds indicated in its reasoning in determining the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the reasoning of the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the facts

It does not seem that it does not appear.

B. The illegal part of the judgment of the court below in light of the following circumstances: (a) the occurrence of a serious result leading to the death of the victim due to the instant accident; (b) the fact that the Defendant did not agree with the bereaved family members of the victim until now is disadvantageous; (c) the instant accident was committed by the Defendant, while the Defendant did not properly look at the front side of the road and did not focus on the Defendant’s fault on the victim’s fault because it was shocked from the left side of the road to the left side; and (d) the fault of the victim caused the instant accident (the opposite side of the road that the victim was crossinged without permission seems to have been difficult to expect the victim’s unauthorized crossing because it was obstructed from the underground lane). The bus driving of the Defendant was insured by the mutual aid association; (d) the Defendant deposited a certain amount of money to the bereaved family members of the victim; and (e) the Defendant is aged, and (e) the Defendant was punished by brain