2. The crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant, where the crime of this case was committed in violation of the duty of pedestrian protection on the crosswalk, and the nature of the crime of causing serious injury to the victim, and the harming vehicles are subscribed only to liability insurance, and the Defendant did not make an agreement with the victim because the Defendant did not make an effort to reach

However, it is necessary to respect the judgment of the court below because there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the court below because new sentencing data are not submitted in the trial at the court below. The defendant reflects the crime of this case; the defendant directly sent the victim to the hospital immediately after the accident; the defendant paid medical expenses and agreed amount to the victim; the same fire marine insurance company, which was a liability insurance company, paid 5 million won out of the above medical expenses, 5,471,540 won out of the agreed amount to Samsung T&T insurance Co., Ltd.; the Samsung T&T insurance company is scheduled to exercise the defendant's right to indemnity against the remaining amount; the victim understood the defendant's understanding of the defendant's condition of compensation against the defendant; the defendant did not have any special criminal record other than three times of fine; and the situation and result of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime, the defendant's personality and behavior, and the circumstances in the records and arguments of this case, etc. are not unreasonable.

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