The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant was unable to find out that the damaged person was standing a crosswalk due to another vehicle that was going on the left-hand side.

Therefore, the defendant was negligent on duty in relation to the accident of this case.

It is difficult to see it.

B. The sentence that the court below rendered unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution for six months of imprisonment without prison labor, 80 hours of community service, and 40 hours of lecture of compliance driving) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to factual misunderstanding, namely, ① the Defendant, at the time of the instant accident, was driving along two lanes, along the two lanes, and the Defendant was installed at a crosswalk in the front direction where the Defendant driven along the road; ② the cargo vehicle driven on the first lane at the time was discovered and stopped the victim; ③ the Defendant continued driving along the two lanes without speed; and ③ Nevertheless, the Defendant was negligent on the part of the Defendant in the course of the instant accident.

I seem to appear.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant's payment of the amount of agreement with the victim and the victim does not want the punishment against the defendant. The accident in this case occurred while the victim gets on the crosswalk without the signal apparatus, and the victim is also responsible for the occurrence of the accident.

The fact that the defendant seems to have been admitted to the Financial Cooperative, the fact that the defendant's vehicle driving is expected to be considerably recovered is favorable.

On the other hand, the accident of this case is that the defendant injured the victim who dried the crosswalk, and the negligence is serious, the degree of the victim's injury is serious, and the defendant has already been punished by the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.