A. In fact, when the defendant misunderstanding the fact was carrying a bicycle on the date, time, place, and the place in which the charge was written and delivered, the victim was faced with his/her bicycle with his/her own car and the accident occurred, and the defendant was not negligent in the occurrence of the accident.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of each evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant: (a) proceeded with a report that gets on and off a bicycle at the date and place indicated in the facts charged; and (b) talks about the victim and his/her behaviors in front of the Defendant’s proceeding direction; (c) the Defendant was also able to report it (the Defendant is merely able to report the form in which the victim was on the direction of proceeding).

The investigation records 44 pages), 3. The defendant's bicycle getting off and she was faced with H and the victim's walk. The victim can be acknowledged the fact that the victim suffered the same injury as the stated in the facts charged, since she tried to avoid the defendant's bicycle in the middle of time. According to the Road Traffic Act, the bicycle is divided into the sidewalk and the roadway, and the bicycle should pass along the roadway at the place where the roadway is separate from the roadway, and the bicycle can pass along the sidewalk in the case where the bicycle passage is permitted with the safety sign. However, if the passage of pedestrians is obstructed, it is possible to recognize the fact that the defendant caused a traffic accident by negligence not driving the bicycle and caused the injury to the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Regarding the unfair argument of sentencing