The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (a year of imprisonment without prison labor) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant caused the negligence in the course of business (the original trial conducted an appraisal of traffic accident analysis by the Road Traffic Authority at the request of the defendant, and the defendant was judged not to be a situation in which it is impossible to recognize pedestrians crossing the road, and the nature of the crime is not weak.).

In addition, considering the fact that ① the victim was receiving treatment for more than six months in a state of vegetable life and resulting in the death of the victim’s bereaved family members, ② the victim’s bereaved family members were suffering from a considerable amount of pain. ② The victim’s answer that the victim’s bereaved family members made the vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetables

However, there is a considerable cause for the victim's mistake, ② At the time of the accident in this case, the defendant seems to have no gross negligence, such as speed and drunk driving, etc., ③ The defendant stated the facts in the police and recognized the crime in the trial (However, the court below argued the crime by denying negligence on the part of the defendant or denying the causal relationship with the victim), ④ there is no criminal record on the defendant, ④ there is no criminal record on the charge of the defendant, ⑤ the defendant submitted a rebuttal and made a statement in the court that "I will see the victim's bereaved family members in a way that they would have to go back to the court," and there is a misunderstanding, such as stating that the defendant made a statement that "I will have to go against the victim's non-consort with the victim's right to the victim's family members."