The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the point where the accident occurred is a four-lane road from each other, and one side of the above road is clearly distinguished from the road as a steel structure, while the opposite side is installed without any particular walking, it is difficult for the defendant to easily expect the person crossing the above road without permission during one night, due to the increase of opposite vehicle, etc., and the defendant did not properly see the front line. According to the Defendant’s black box video, any signs are not reduced on the screen of the direction where the defendant’s vehicle is in progress, and immediately after the passage of the opposite vehicle, the victim appears to cross the vehicle without permission on one-lane in the direction where the defendant’s vehicle is in progress, and even if the defendant operated the road at normal speed from the point where the defendant can be deemed to have discovered the victim from the above black image to the point where the damaged person was shocked, it cannot be seen that the defendant violated the duty of the front line or the duty of the defendant at the time of the accident.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the penalty amounting to KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant was not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case with the same content, but the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds stated in its reasoning and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case.

The court below compared the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below with the contents of the judgment below.