2. The crime of this case was committed by the defendant, who was a female under 8 years of age with a crosswalk, and suffered bodily injury that requires about 12 weeks of treatment. Since no signal, etc. is installed on the above crosswalk, the defendant should have fulfilled his duty of care, such as temporary stop and speed reduction in front of the crosswalk, and since there was no particular difficulty in securing the view at the time of the accident, it is significant that the defendant's negligence was large and the degree of damage caused by the accident was serious; the victim strongly demanded the punishment of the defendant; the victim is a female under the victim's mental treatment due to the aftermath of the accident of this case; the victim is currently under the victim's aftermath of the accident of this case and needs additional measures such as the periodic examination of the part of the injury and removal of scar, etc.

However, the fact that the defendant is in violation of his depth in committing the crime of this case, that the defendant deposited KRW 1.9 million for the victim in the original trial, and deposited additional KRW 1.0 million in the original trial, that the vehicle operated by the defendant was affiliated with the taxi transport business association, that the defendant did not have any history of punishment for the same crime, that the defendant did not have any history of punishment for the same crime, that there was no history of punishment for the defendant except for those punished three times by a fine, and that the defendant is registered as a person with bad credit standing, etc. are considered to be in an economically difficult situation.

Therefore, in light of the above circumstances and the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and motive and circumstance of the crime, it is not determined that the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3.