The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

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

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, misunderstanding the legal principles, was a bicycle driving route where people’s place of accident was prohibited from passing, and it was difficult to secure the view at that time, and the victim could not have anticipated to cross the vehicle, and thus, the accident occurred rapidly depending on force majeure that makes it impossible to avoid the victim. Thus, the Defendant, as a bicycle driver, did not commit an act of violating the duty of care on duty

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six months’ imprisonment without prison labor) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, ① the place of accident is a package to prevent the slicking of crypical color having the meaning of the crosswalk prior notice in order to prevent a sleep near the three streets, and this constitutes a "senior protection area" in contact with the crosswalk, and thus, it could have sufficiently predicted the appearance of pedestrians at that time; ② the place of accident is a road surface with the meaning of the crosswalk prior notice, along with the indication of a slick pattern having the meaning of the crosswalk prior notice.

(m) Speed studio;

The speed of "SLOW" with a traffic safety sign, crosswalk mark, etc.;

The fact that the traffic safety sign " was set up in both directions," and that there was a duty of care to take care of pedestrians at all times, and ③ the bicycle club members was led by the bicycle club members.

E Detection a victim from approximately five meters prior to the detection of the victim, and “Astrosta”

Since the Defendant, who had driven a bicycle in the second place, was not able to hear the sound, was found to have shocked the damaged person by making the bicycle late, and the Defendant, as a bicycle rider, violated the duty of due care on duty as a bicycle driver, is sufficiently recognized.

If so, the court below convicted the facts charged.