The judgment of the court below which dismissed the charged facts of this case No. 2 is erroneous and erroneous.

2. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to the extent that there is no room for a reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to reach such a degree that it would lead to the prosecutor’s conviction, the determination should be based on the defendant’s interest.

On the facts charged of this case, the defendant consistently stated, until the investigative agency and the court of the trial, that "in passing the crosswalk of this case, the crosswalk of this case was red signal, the crosswalk of this case was not the one, and the one was not the one, and the other, and the other was plicked to the left, and the hand was plicked on the left side," and it is not an accident that occurred in the crosswalk. Thus, the issue of this case is whether the accident of this case occurred in the crosswalk when the signal of this case is green.

C. As to whether the instant accident is an accident at the crosswalk, there are evidence that is consistent with this, the statements made by the victim in the investigative agency and the court of the original instance, and the statements and statements made by E in the court of the original instance, but it is difficult to easily believe them for the following reasons.

① First, with respect to the crosswalks, the victim stated clearly and repeatedly that the victim was “a level of green inequalitys” when entering the entrance of the crosswalks.

However, there are multi-high schools in neighboring areas, and it seems that students had passed through the time the accident occurred, and even according to the E's statement, the signal atmosphere at the time was reached.