The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for ten months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The direct cause of the instant accident in mistake of facts is not the Defendant’s central crime but the victim’s unauthorized crossing.

B. In light of the legal principles, there is no causal relationship between the accident of this case and the infringement of the central line, and the accident of this case is a matter of whether the duty to protect pedestrians was violated, and it cannot be viewed as an accident caused by the infringement of the central line.

In addition, the defendant has no duty of care to drive the pedestrian crossing without permission by predicting the victim in advance.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (10 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant argued that the judgment of the court below is the same as the grounds for appeal by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. Accordingly, the court below rejected the above assertion that the defendant's traffic accident is sufficient to recognize that "the purpose of prohibiting the infringement of the road traffic law is not simply the prevention of collision with a motor vehicle driving ahead of a motor vehicle driving ahead of the median line, but it is clear that the traffic accident is likely to prevent general traffic risks caused by the collision with the motor vehicle driving ahead of the median line, and such danger includes the risk of accidents caused by unrefusing pedestrians crossing the crosswalk because it is difficult to detect and avoid by driving the median line in order to overtake the motor vehicle in front of the motor vehicle. In full view of the evidence in the judgment of the court below, it is sufficient to recognize that the defendant's collision with the victim caused a traffic accident due to the collision of the median line and the occurrence of the victim's injury beyond the floor."

Examining the above judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is justified.