The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on a different premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though it was not recognized that the Defendant was negligent on duty, because the victim misunderstanding of the facts did not cross the road without permission at night, complying with the speed limit, and was in operation.

B. The lower court’s sentence (eight months’ imprisonment without prison labor) is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the insurance with which the victim was admitted to the sentencing unfair Defendant and the victim’s bereaved family was paid insurance money, and the Defendant’s economic situation is difficult.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as a photo of the accident site, a fact-finding survey report, and a traffic accident analysis report, the injured party, at the time of the accident, crosses the road from the delivery of the opposite part of the two-lanes to the defendant's direction, and thus, it is not particularly necessary to obstruct the defendant's view at the accident site, except for the circumstances that were at night, and it is recognized that the place where the accident occurred is a commercial building and a general road where people frequent. Therefore, it is possible to sufficiently recognize the victim's occupational negligence and expect it.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous as a mistake of facts alleged by the defendant.

B. As the current Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has a unique area for sentencing determination, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).