The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment without prison labor) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is acknowledged that the Defendant was negligent in neglecting the duty of front-time care while driving a taxi and driving the taxi at the intersection, resulting in shocking the victim who dried the crosswalk according to the pedestrian signal and resulting in a fluence requiring treatment for about six weeks. The degree of negligence of the Defendant is relatively heavy, the injury suffered by the victim is not easy, and the Defendant was punished for a traffic accident, such as this case, around 2015.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime; (b) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment other than the previous and one time before the same kind of fine; (c) the Defendant has paid the victim a criminal agreement amount of KRW 12 million in the trial; and (d) the victim does not want to punish the Defendant; (c) the taxi driving the Defendant is insured by the mutual aid association; (d) the Defendant is over 70 years old; and (e) other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is somewhat unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the following judgment is rendered again

[Grounds for the judgment of multiple times] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is identical to the facts constituting a crime and summary of evidence, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 3(1) and the proviso of Article 3(2) and (6) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and Article 1.