The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The place where the instant accident occurred by mistake and misapprehension of the legal principles is an absolute unauthorized crossing prohibition zone, which is established by the date on which the delivery and vehicular road are set up to prevent unauthorized crossing. As such, the Defendant cannot anticipate a person crossing without permission, and the Defendant was not at fault in the course of business related to the instant accident.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles and mistake of facts, was unauthorized crossing the victim beyond the drums set up between India and the roadway.

However, it is difficult to believe it in light of the fact that the victim was 7 years of age, and that there was a passage for the passage between India and the roadway because the surrounding area was a "gold-Nam market" even if there was a guard between India and the roadway, and therefore there is no way to install a guard for the passage of the guard.

As the defendant's assertion, the victim was unauthorized to cross the house beyond the diversity day.

Even if the accident location of this case is one-lane road, and people who want to go to the center of the central line in opposition to the width of the central line, and the weather conditions at the time of the accident of this case were clear and p.m., and there were no factors that may obstruct the passage of the defendant to the front door of the vehicle driving, it is reasonable to view the accident of this case as an accident caused by negligence by the defendant's failure to perform his duty on the front line, although the accident of this case was committed without the consent of the victim, although the accident of this case was caused by negligence without the consent of the victim.

Therefore, it is just that the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by

B. Sentencing unfair Defendant has refused to renew comprehensive insurance with the wind that caused contact with the external vehicles prior to the instant accident, and has no choice but to subscribe to liability insurance.