The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six 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. Fact-finding 1) The accident place in this case was the place where the roadway and India are separated, but the lower court recognized that “the place where the accident in this case was not divided into the roadway and India,” and there is an error of mistake in the lower court’s determination of facts. 2) It cannot be readily concluded that the victim suffered from “the blood transfusion from outer brain cerebrovascular, the acute throid, and the ductal mathrosis” due to the instant accident.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months’ imprisonment without prison labor) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the location of the accident in this case is an apartment complex that has a separate parking lot at the edge of the parking lot. However, it is naturally anticipated that not only the vehicle but also people's passage is frequent at the parking lot in the apartment complex, such as parking the vehicle in the parking lot and walking it into apartment, etc., and the defendant also stated in the police that "the apartment residents knew that they walk frequently at the place of the accident in this case" (20 pages of investigation records) and "the driver of the vehicle driving the accident in this case is not divided between delivery and vehicular road, so the driver of the vehicle driving the accident in this case has the duty to thoroughly operate the front-round and safely." Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit, and there is no error of mistake of facts in the court below's decision that determined that "the driver of the vehicle driving the accident in this case has the duty to take care of the vehicle in this case, and the victim of the vehicle in this case was removed from the hospital and the victim in this case 1.