The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On February 21, 2018, the Defendant (misunderstanding of the legal doctrine) agreed with the victim on February 21, 2018, and the written agreement on February 22, 2018, stating the Defendant’s expression of intention not to punish the Defendant was submitted to the court of the lower judgment.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the charged facts of this case guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of suspended execution in the sixth month of imprisonment without prison labor, and 80 hours of community service) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person engaged in the business of driving bicycles.

On July 28, 2017, the Defendant driven the above bicycle around 22:05, and proceeded at a speed of about 20 km in the speed of about 30 km from the long distance from the calculation distance side of the five-lane road in front of the Incheon Gyeyang-gu, Incheon.

Since there is a bus stop, there is a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance, such as making it possible for a person engaged in the business of driving bicycles to look at whether passengers get off from a bus parked in a bus stop, and accurately manipulating the steering direction and brake system.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and received the victim E (45 years) who was lowered from the bus in the course of business due to negligence in the course of running between D buses standing in the bus stops and bus stops.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by occupational negligence, inflicted injury on the victim with acute climatic blood transfusion, etc., without any open address in the two parts, which requires approximately eight weeks of medical treatment.

3. We examine the judgment, and in the case of the crime of non-violation of punishment, the absence of the expression of intention to punish is subject to ex officio investigation as a so-called passive litigation condition (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do11339, Feb. 29, 2008, etc.). The facts charged in the instant case are under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.