A. After the vehicle of the Defendant driver claiming a misunderstanding of facts stops, it is nothing more than the fact that the victim intentionally tried to examine whether or not he or she was able to cross without permission, and there is no fact that the vehicle of the Defendant driver directly shocked the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The fine of KRW 2.5 million sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the victim made a statement that “the vehicle of the defendant's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's vehicle gets in front of the vehicle's right side while stopping a bus at the right side of the bus gets in front of the bus gets in front of her body,” and the victim also supports the contents of the diagnosis issued on the day of the accident; (ii) the bus engineer who appeared before the accident saw that the vehicle of the defendant's driver's vehicle gets in front of the center line and her face the victim.” (iii) The defendant argued that all of the crimes of this case were committed in the court of the court below (in particular, even if the defendant violated the safety duty of the driver's driver's duty of care and the duty of care in handling traffic accidents as argued by the defendant, even if he did not have any influence on the safety duty of the driver's driver's negligence.)