The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was negligent in the occurrence of an accident, since misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles sufficiently exercised care to protect pedestrians.

subsection (b) of this section.

It is unclear whether the instant accident occurred in the crosswalk.

In the accident of this case, the injured person suffered injury;

shall not be deemed to exist.

The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal principles.

B. 70,000 won, which was sentenced by the lower court, is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant suffered a sacriffed with the victim who had entered the crosswalk by violating the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk.

There is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment below.

1) The location of the instant accident was a crosswalk where pedestrians were not installed, and at the time, the passage of the instant accident was restricted.

2) At the time of the accident, the victim took the crosswalk.

Comparedly made statements.

The defendant also stated in the police and the court below that the accident of this case occurred in the crosswalk (the presiding judge of the court below asked the defendant about whether he/she is an accident on the crosswalk, but the defendant did not dispute.

In light of these circumstances, the position of the damaged person is recognized as above the crosswalk.

3) At the time of the accident, the victim complained of the Defendant’s her m and her m and m and her m and m and her m and m and her m and her m and her m and her m

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the Defendant’s negligence is not less vulnerable to the instant accident.

Until the pronouncement date of the judgment of this case, it is recognized that the defendant agreed with the victim.