The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below (6 months of imprisonment without prison labor and 2 years of suspended execution) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is recognized that the Defendant shows an attitude against the recognition of the instant crime, the Defendant agreed with the victim that the injured person does not want to be punished against the Defendant, and that the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment prior to the instant crime.

However, the defendant's breach of the duty of care in the crosswalk, and the degree of the victim's injury is not less than that of the victim, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and all the sentencing factors expressed in the instant records and trial process, including the circumstances after the crime was committed, the sentence imposed by the lower court shall not be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it was too excessive.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition, since the defendant's appeal is without merit.