2. The judgment of the court below recognized the defendant's mistake and reflects his depth, and that the victim does not want the defendant's punishment by agreement with the victim, etc., is favorable to the defendant, but the defendant suffered serious injury that requires about 14 weeks of treatment, the defendant's duty of care in the crosswalk and duty of care in the protection zone for children, and the victim did not immediately stop due to negligence of violating the duty of care in the protection of children in the protection zone for children and did not immediately stop. In full view of the following circumstances, the degree of violation of the defendant's duty of care is considerably significant in relation to the crime of this case, and the defendant's age, character, character, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing specified in the arguments and records of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence after the crime, it is not recognized that the

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.