A. In light of the principle of trust, the Defendant cannot be recognized as having breached his duty of care in relation to the instant accident due to the occurrence of the instant accident by having the victim violated the stop signal and entering the intersection.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment without prison labor, two years of suspended execution, 80 hours of community service order, 40 hours of law-abiding driving lecture) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The driver of a motor vehicle who finds a misapprehension of the legal doctrine is obliged to perform his/her duty of care to the extent that he/she could avoid the result in preparation for an occurrence of an occurrence of an exceptional situation which is sufficiently and normally unforeseeable and to prepare for it.

subsection (b) of this section.

However, the so-called principle of trust that a driver who operates a road is not liable for breach of duty of care to the driver as long as he/she has trusted that the driver would comply with all traffic regulations and operated the road on the basis of such trust, is not liable for the driver's breach of duty of care to the driver, is excluded from its application in special circumstances where the other driver's traffic supervisor cannot be trusted that he/she will drive or walk the vehicle in compliance with all traffic laws and regulations related to the road traffic (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Do79, Apr. 10, 1984; 2002Do4134, Oct. 11, 2002). With respect to the instant case, health class and the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the instant accident occurred at the intersection, and even if the defendant who is driving the same place as the site of the instant accident, even if he/she is driving the vehicle in accordance with the new subparagraph, he/she can stop pedestrian and stop it.