The court below held that even if the defendant shocked the non-indicted walking along the crosswalk and the victim was injured by the non-indicted because the non-indicted scambed, the victim could not be subject to the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk as long as the victim was walking outside the crosswalk, so long as the victim was walking alone, it cannot be subject to the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk as provided in Article 3 (2) 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 27 (1) of

However, the above provision merely strengthens the duty to protect pedestrians of vehicles, but it should not be deemed that the scope of protection is limited to the case where the result of the injury occurred to pedestrians walking along the crosswalk. Therefore, in this case, as long as the defendant scambling the Nonindicted Party walking along the crosswalk, and the defendant breached the duty to protect pedestrians, and as long as the victim was injured thereby, the defendant is liable for a violation of the duty to protect pedestrians in relation to the victim walking outside the crosswalk. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the prosecution against the defendant by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

In light of the legal principles and circumstances mentioned above and the legislative intent of Article 3 (2) 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 27 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, it is reasonable to view that the court below's dismissal of the public prosecution of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning is justified, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Dong-ho (Presiding Judge)