A. The Prosecutor’s sentence (two years of suspended sentence in August) of the lower court (two years of suspended sentence in the Treasury) is too unfluent and unfair.

B. The Defendant did not commit a violation of the signal.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may be found guilty of all the charges of this case, including the shocking of the victim who was cutting the crosswalk pursuant to green pedestrian signals around February 14, 2012.

B. In light of the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the court below’s sentence is deemed appropriate, since the defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim, the defendant was the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment, the defendant deposited KRW 5 million for the victim, and the defendant’s vehicle was subscribed to a mutual aid agreement under Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and other various sentencing conditions specified in the arguments, such as the above defendant’s age, character, character, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime. Thus, the prosecutor’s above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that all of the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant are without merit. It is