The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment without prison labor for six months, suspension of execution for one year, and order to attend a law-abiding driving lecture for forty hours) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment shows the attitude of the defendant as to the time when the crime of this case was committed. The bus driven by the defendant at the time of the crime of this case was admitted to the National Federation of Bus Transport Business Association, the defendant agreed with the legal representative of the victim by endeavoring to recover the damage of the victim. The legal representative does not want the punishment of the defendant, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment before.

However, the defendant has a duty of care to ensure the safety of passengers getting on and off a bus as a person engaged in bus driving services and has a duty of care to ensure the safety of passengers getting on and off a bus at all times, and when a bus stops and departs from a bus stop at a bus stop in a children protection zone especially designated for the safety of children, such as the zone in which the accident occurred, taking into account the same place, characteristics of passengers getting on and off a bus, and structural characteristics of the bus, in particular, he has a duty of care to pay a careful attention to enable children to safely get on and off the bus without any accident, but he neglected to do so, and even if the victim tried to get on and off the bus after his father and punishment but yet failed to complete the safe boarding of the bus, the front door of the bus is closed as it is without checking the existence of the other persons getting on and off the bus, and the victim tried to get off the bus due to this accident.