The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding H did not avoid the Defendant’s vehicle under a stop, and the accident occurred by itself, and the Defendant did not commit any negligence.

B. In such a case, misunderstanding of the legal principles does not include the front wheelchairs in the “test for supporting pedestrians” under Article 2 subparag. 10 of the Road Traffic Act, which provides for pedestrians as pedestrians, as they used electric wheelchairs for the convenience of mobility even though they are capable of walking on their own.

Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the traffic accident of this case as the traffic accident of this case is not subject to the proviso of Article 3 (2) 6 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and the defendant should be sentenced to

2. Determination

A. According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant is fully aware of the fact that the Defendant was negligent in causing injury by shocking the left side of the front wheelchairs on which H is boarding, while continuing without taking appropriate measures to prevent collision, even though H gets on the crosswalk as stated in the instant facts charged.

1) From an investigative agency to the court of the court below, H suffered injury by the Defendant, on the right side of the vehicle, after he shocked the front and rear wheel part of H with his front and rear wheel part of H, facing his left elbel and left knife with his left part.

A consistent statement consistent with the facts charged in the instant case was made, and there was no inconsistency with the contents of the statement or any violation of objective circumstances.

2) The statement of H is consistent with the initial results of the traffic accident investigation made on the day of the instant case, the report of the traffic accident (the report of the actual situation investigation) and is consistent with the diagnosis of H and the injury part contained in the medical record.

3) H entered the upper part of the lower part of the upper part of the left-hand aggregate due to the instant accident. However, it is only time to pluck up or pluck up the hand at the time of examining the hand while the injury was always going beyond the floor.