All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s instant traffic accident did not violate the Defendant’s duty of care in driving, but did not look at whether the Defendant was guilty of the victim, and whether the Defendant was guilty of the victim. The Defendant did not have the intent of escape because the victim was aware that he was not able to attract the kickboard and continued to do so.

The punishment of the court below (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant, while driving the defendant's vehicle where the house was stopped on the street and driving the place where the accident occurred while there are many children, such as the victim, and starting the vehicle without due care, even though there are many children, and thereby, the part of the driver's seat of the defendant's vehicle where the victim was on the same direction at the rear side of the vehicle, and caused the victim to be on board the vehicle in need of two weeks of medical treatment.

On the other hand, at the time of the instant accident, the victim (seven years of age) is not able to distinguish at all at all, but is still aware of the degree of his body’s condition, and as long as he is faced with the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle, the Defendant, who does not have expertise in medical science, must undergo a diagnosis and treatment of other superior situations, etc. that are not aware of the fact that the victim might face to a hospital, and as such, the victim was able to take care of the victim’s body, and there is no protective measure against the victim on the ground that he respondeded to the above.