The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact that the defendant misunderstanding the fact was found to have injured the vehicle by the crosswalk, but at the time, the victim was frighting to the central line on the otoba, and the victim's negligence was the main cause of the accident that the victim suffered from the injury (hereinafter "the accident of this case") due to the collision between the defendant's vehicle and the victim's oba, it can be deemed that the accident of this case occurred by the victim's negligence.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the following facts are acknowledged: ① the defendant is standing on the right side of the road by driving his own vehicle, and the victim's erroneous soil is shocked by the defendant's vehicle in the same direction as the defendant's vehicle while driving the crosswalk in order to drive it on the opposite side of the road; ② the above crosswalk was installed immediately and the center line of yellow-ray.

According to the above facts, it was directly attributable to the occurrence of the accident of this case that the defendant invadedd the crosswalk in which U.S. is not allowed at the time of this case.

I seem to appear.

Although the victim's negligence going beyond the median line caused the occurrence of the instant accident.

As seen earlier, insofar as the Defendant’s breach of duty of care is recognized, the instant accident can only be seen as the occurrence of the instant accident by competition between the Defendant’s negligence and the victim’s negligence, and such circumstance does not affect the establishment of the Defendant’s crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da15489, Apr.