The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment without prison labor, two years of suspended execution, and two hundred hours of social service) is deemed unreasonable as it is too uneasy.

2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant were that the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle purchased a comprehensive car insurance policy, thereby compensating the victim’s bereaved family members for KRW 73,606,560; that the Government’s market price appears to have paid KRW 12,00,000 of the death insurance money to the victim’s bereaved family members in accordance with the subscription of the Government Citizens’ bicycle insurance contract to the Government citizens who subscribed to the insured; that the Defendant deposited KRW 5,00,00 in the first instance trial; and that the site of the instant accident was installed with a crosswalk without signal lights adjacent to the intersection, and it was not easy to secure the right-hand turn while making a left-hand turn at the crosswalk.

However, the accident site of this case is a general road where commercial buildings are concentrated, and pedestrians crossing the road, bicycles, and traffic on the road is frequent, as well as the vehicle operated by the defendant was installed a crosswalk sign in the direction of entering the intersection, and although the defendant was well aware of the traffic situation or location of the crosswalk at two times a day around the above site and the defendant was well aware of the above traffic situation or the location of the crosswalk, the accident of this case occurred by driving the road along the crosswalk while keeping the right left and left without looking well at the right and left and maintaining the speed of the road.

There is a negligence that the victim has entered the crosswalk in the state of the bicycle;

The Defendant’s negligence, when he neglected his duty on the front side and the left side, is larger than the fault of the victim (the Defendant alleged to the effect that the view was obstructed by the vehicle under construction, but in light of the point where the accident occurred, the location of the vehicle under construction, the driving direction of the Defendant’s vehicle and the victim’s bicycle, etc., the above argument is difficult to accept). Above all, the victim dies by negligence while driving the Defendant.