(a) The location of the motor vehicle of the defendant to which the victim of a mistake of facts has been taken shall not be the victim outside the crosswalk, and therefore the defendant shall not be deemed to have violated the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalks under Article 27 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the Defendant’s vehicle black images and the field pictures submitted by the Defendant, the victim appears to sit in front of the signboard immediately outside the crosswalk after the instant accident, following the determination of the mistake of facts.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the victim stated in the court below that he was in existence at the H hospital located on the front side of the crosswalk at the time of the accident in this case; (ii) the victim confirmed the number of the defendant vehicle after the accident in this case and stated that he would walk to the defendant vehicle; and (iii) in light of the victim's above group, it is reasonable to view that the victim was faced with the defendant vehicle that entered the crosswalk at the same time, and (iv) according to the black c) the victim was approaching the front side of the crosswalk at the time of the entry of the vehicle, and the victim was faced with the front side of the crosswalk at the time of the defendant's vehicle and the victim was faced with the front side of the crosswalk at the time of the accident in this case, there is a possibility that the victim was no obligation to protect the pedestrian vehicle later than the victim who entered the crosswalk.

However, all vehicles.