The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for eight 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. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles have fulfilled the duty of pre-determination at the time of the accident in this case, and since the victim was unable to cross without permission, the defendant cannot be deemed to have been negligent in conducting business related to the accident in this case.

The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the sentence of unfair sentencing (the imprisonment without prison labor for August, the suspension of execution for two years, community service, 120 hours, and 40 hours in the compliance driving lecture) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below's determination on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the accident of this case is deemed to have occurred when the defendant, who was going beyond the restricted speed [the restricted speed of the road was 70 km per hour, but at the time, the road was sucked so that the surface at the time was sucked so that it would reduce the maximum speed of 20 km (56 km x 70 km x 80 km) pursuant to Article 19 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act. However, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed the accident of this case in excess of the above facts charged by negligence that the defendant neglected to take care of the victim who was crossing the road in the direction of the defendant's proceeding and could not avoid it.

The court below is just in finding a guilty of the facts charged of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles.

B. The instant accident regarding the allegation of unfair sentencing is likely to cause severe damage to the victim due to his death and heavy consequences.

However, the defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment for the last ten years, and in this case, the victim's fault of crossing without permission was concurrent.

From the investigative agency to the point that the victim died by the accident of this case, the defendant was divided in depth and reflected.