The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for ten months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the point where the instant traffic accident occurred, which was established as a central separation cost, was installed at the place where the instant traffic accident occurred, and thus, the Defendant could not expect the victim to cross without permission, and the Defendant operated at a speed lower than the statutory speed. As such, there was an occupational negligence on the part of the Defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (10 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court was negligent in the course of performing its duty to prevent the occurrence of the instant accident.

In addition, even if the defendant complied with the speed limit as alleged by the defendant, the defendant fulfilled his duty of care on such sole basis.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

① The instant accident site is parallel with the two-lanes of the four-lanes of the lux apartment site in the same luxa Dong-dong Community Center at the time of leisure, and the date and time of the instant accident is around 9:16 on May 4, 2016, and there was no factor to interfere with the driver’s view due to clear and dry weather.

② The instant accident occurred when the victim was crossing the victim without permission from the right side of the defendant's proceeding to the left side with the husband of the victim.

③ The Defendant found the husband of the victim around the time when the victim got her husband from three lanes to two lanes, and the victim was at a distance close to the husband of the victim, but the Defendant did not take measures such as delayed speed.

The defendant found only her husband of the victim who had existed earlier at the time, but did not discover the victim.