2. The judgment of the court below is examined. The crime of this case is found to be committed by the defendant, who is driving a vehicle by obtaining the victim D to cross the vehicle using the crosswalk as the front part of the above vehicle, due to the negligence that the defendant neglected his duty of the front section and the right and the right and the right and the right and the due to the negligence that led to the failure of the defendant to perform the duty of the signal signal etc., and suffered injury, such as cutting the alley part for about 14 weeks in need of medical treatment. The accident place is an area where the private teaching institute and the commercial building are concentrated, and it is sufficiently anticipated that there is a pedestrian who walks the crosswalk at the crosswalk around 6 p.m. and around 6 p.m., it is hard to say that the defendant's shocking of the crosswalk violates the basic traffic order, which is a duty of pedestrian protection, and thus, the crime is not good. It is found that there is no agreement with the victim.

However, there is no specific criminal records including the same crime except punishment by a fine of two times (violation of Automobile Management Act in 2001, Road Traffic Act in 2006) as a result of the crime of this case, and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, background of the crime of this case, and crime of this case.