The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In this case of mistake of facts, since the defendant shocked the victim E who walked across a two-lane road from the new wall 3:00 p.m., it is difficult to view that the defendant has a duty of care to bring the case to the case where there is a person driving on a scke and driving on a road along the scke, and it is difficult to view that the defendant has suffered "injury" to the extent that the victim needs medical treatment due to minor shock at the time of the accident even if the defendant's breach of duty of care is recognized as a driver.

The lower court erred by misunderstanding the facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Whether the defendant violated the duty of care on the part of the driver, or (a) whether the defendant is found to have violated the duty of care on the part of the driver, and even if the defendant did not have the duty of care on the part of the driver, he is negligent on the part of the driver, if the defendant did not have the duty of care on the part of the driver, even though he could have discovered the victim who would have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do840, May 28, 1991; 2001Do5005, Dec. 11, 2001). In cases where a driver was found or could have discovered a victim in advance and performed the duty of care required for the driver, if the driver could avoid the accident, then the driver could be found to have breached the duty of care.

(B) He returned to the instant case and returned, and the Road Traffic Authority’s Seoul Special Metropolitan City Branch Chief for the appraisal commission, booms.