A. 1) In the case of an intersection through which the Defendant was passing, the victim was negligent in neglecting the duty of her own view in the passage of the intersection, not by the Defendant, as it is a road with a wider width than that of the intersection passing by the victim.

2) Since the victim was not hospitalized after the accident, there was no injury under the Criminal Act due to the minor injury that can be naturally cured.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts-misunderstanding 1) On the part of the injured party’s occupational negligence records, the roads passing by the injured party are the first lane of the road along which delivery is installed, while the roads passing by the Defendant are the side of the road without the center line. In consideration of such road structure and status, etc., the roads passing by the injured party is a road with a wide width. The Defendant was negligent in driving through the intersection where traffic control is not conducted, while driving through the intersection where traffic control is not conducted, for a temporary suspension or making a stop, and without looking at the right and the right of the front bank well.

I would like to say.

2) According to a photograph related to the injury, the degree of damage of the damaged vehicle was not somewhat weak, and even according to a written estimate, it is deemed that the repair cost of the damaged vehicle was anticipated to be 673,368 won, and the shock caused by the damaged person was not small. Moreover, the doctor who treated the victim was diagnosed with two weeks of full-time care in consideration of all circumstances, thereby recognizing the fact that the damaged person suffered the injury regardless of whether the injured person was hospitalized or not.

3) Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is rejected.

B. Sentencing is relatively minor, but the Defendant did not agree with the victim.

In addition, considering the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, all of the sentencing conditions in this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the court below is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is too unreasonable.