The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The misunderstanding of the legal principle does not constitute a pedestrian, and the defendant was negligent in the occurrence of the instant accident, and even if otherwise, there was no need to take measures after the accident under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. In light of the fact that there are circumstances to consider the occurrence of the instant accident, and that there is no criminal history other than drinking and unlicensed driving, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court by the Defendant (the penalty amounting to KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The instant facts charged do not premised that the victim is a pedestrian. As such, whether the victim constitutes a pedestrian under the relevant statutes is irrelevant to the recognition of the instant facts charged.

Meanwhile, in light of the various circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was negligent in neglecting the duty of care to safely operate the front left and right by accurately manipulating the operation and steering gear, and the defendant was aware of the possibility that the victim was injured by considerable shock, while recognizing the possibility that he was able to rescue the victim or to inform her personal information, etc., even though he was able to avoid collision with the victim's personal information.

Therefore, the Defendant was negligent in the occurrence of the instant accident, and the Plaintiff’s accident under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act.