A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment without prison labor, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. In fact 1, misunderstanding of the legal principles or misunderstanding of the traffic accident in this case, the court below excluded the application of Article 3 (2) 6 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents on the ground that the traffic accident in this case caused the defendant to drive in violation of the duty of protection of pedestrians in the crosswalk, but it did not constitute an accident in the crosswalk.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the prosecutor’s mistake of the facts or the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, in particular, the fact that the Defendant conflicts with the victim who was walking outside the crosswalk with the vehicle driven by the Defendant, by taking into account the following: (a) various evidence duly adopted and examined; (b) the actual inspection report (the traffic accident occurred outside the crosswalk); (c) the scene photograph of the accident scene immediately after the accident (the final stopping of the vehicle involved in the accident in the above photograph and the front point of pedestrians are located far away from the crosswalk); and (d) photographs (the front point of the vehicle involved in the accident is located at a high level after the crosswalk), etc. capturing the black image of

Therefore, the instant traffic accident does not constitute “the case of operating a vehicle in violation of the duty to protect pedestrians at a crosswalk under Article 27(1) of the Road Traffic Act” under Article 3(2)6 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. Therefore, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor in the judgment below that acquitted the facts charged.

subsection (b) of this section.

The prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant's decision on the improper argument of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor is recognized and against all his/her mistake, and the defendant is able to do so with the victim in the trial of the court below.