All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant was not negligent in regard to the instant accident, such as misunderstanding of the fact, referring to the duty of prior and right-hand watch and the duty of safety caution.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, as it pronounced guilty of the facts charged in this case.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment without prison labor for six months, one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor: The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts are as follows, namely, the instant accident occurred within a combined lane for bicycles and pedestrians (traffic accident analysis report, 113 pages). Although the Defendant discovered that the bicycle was coming from the right side, the Defendant entered the same route for both bicycles and pedestrians (Evidence 30 pages of evidence record) and the Defendant appears to have gone slowly after entering the port (see, e.g.,CCTV video, and even after entering the port, it cannot be deemed that the instant accident was driven slowly and stopped.

If the defendant was suspended,

Even if the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the defendant, in full view of the fact that the accident of this case occurred after the entry into a combined road for bicycles and pedestrians, since it was stopped within the above road.

The judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of mistake as to the facts alleged by the defendant.

B. As to each of the unfair claims for sentencing, the lower court determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant, and there is no circumstance to newly consider in the appellate court. Therefore, even considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the Prosecutor on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unbrupted so that it is unreasonable.

3. If so, the prosecutor and the defendant.