The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the road situation before the instant traffic accident due to mistake of facts and the degree that the Defendant exceeded the speed limit, etc., even if the Defendant was somewhat underfinite, it cannot be said that there was an occupational negligence on the part of the Defendant.

In addition, there was a situation in which it is difficult for the defendant to anticipate that there is a pedestrian crossing without permission, and the victim inevitably shocked the victim at the time of the instant traffic accident, so it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the defendant's operation and the instant traffic accident.

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. On January 31, 2013, the Defendant: (a) driven a low-priced passenger car with B (B) on January 31, 2013; (b) led D’s front road in C at the time of strike to proceed one-lane from the Eup/Myeon of the Pakistan to the Si/Eup/Myeon.

At the time, there was a very short range of visible distance due to no authorization or street etc. in the vicinity, so there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by driving safely, such as reducing a much more speed than 70 km per hour, at a restricted speed, and lowering the height of automobiles.

Nevertheless, without neglecting this, the Defendant did not discover the victim E (Nam, 20 years old) who was crossing the road on the right side of the vehicle at the speed of 76.8km to 83km per hour, while driving the vehicle at the speed of 76.8km to 83km per hour, and did not find the victim E (Nam, 20 years old) who was driving the vehicle at the right side of the front of the vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the death of the victim due to the cerebral cerebral Bribery damage at G Hospital in Gyeyang-gu, Youngyang-gu, Seoul, where the victim was under the follow-up treatment at around 02:35 on February 1, 2013 due to such occupational negligence.

B. On the judgment of the court below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the traffic accident report (actual fact-finding report).