A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the fact that the accident of this case, such as misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, confirmed that the vehicle signal is a straight signal, and the Defendant's vehicle entering the crosswalk entered the crosswalk, but shocked the victim who could not cut off the crosswalk within the signal, and did not violate the Defendant's duty to protect pedestrians. However, although the Defendant was a pedestrian signal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that the Defendant entered the crosswalk and caused the accident of this case.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (eight months of imprisonment without prison labor and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court. In other words, the defendant and the victim stated that the vehicle other than the defendant's vehicle at the time of the instant accident did not enter the crosswalk. The defendant, in the investigative agency, the court below, and the trial court, "In accordance with the on-site inspection conducted by the party at the time before about 20 meters from the crosswalk stop line, the defendant considered that the front signal is changed, and measured the distance from a specific point to the crosswalk stop line. The signal is changed. The signal is reported to be changed. The defendant started the vehicle at the time of his entry to the crosswalk, and faced the vehicle at the front of the signal signal." If, as alleged by the defendant, the defendant would have changed prior to the passage of the crosswalk, the defendant would have actually passed the signal from the point where the signal was changed to the crosswalk to 32 meters prior to the crosswalk or the signal.