The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles) the Defendant could not avoid the outcome of the instant accident, and the Defendant should be acquitted on the ground that there was no relation between the Defendant’s negligence and the instant accident.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same at the court below. However, according to the evidence of the court below, the defendant argued that ① the accident place was likely to frequent traffic of elementary school students, etc. nearby an elementary school, and especially on the side of the road above 35 meters long from the accident place, so the defendant who driven the vehicle at that place was obliged to do so pursuant to Article 5 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 8 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and attached Table 6 (Serial No. 519) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the defendant was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding 70 km per hour while driving the vehicle at the front side of the accident at a speed exceeding the victims who walk the vehicle without permission from the right-hand side of the road, and thus, the driver of the vehicle can be recognized as violating the duty of care of the defendant's vehicle, and the vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's front and rear at the front side of the accident without permission of the accident.