The instant case is a traffic accident that occurred while the victim began lawfully crossing the crosswalk in the state of green light of pedestrian signal, etc., and the traffic accident occurred while the signal was changed to red lights while crossing in the state of “to complete prompt crossing” in the state of warning of the aforementioned green light.

As such, since the victim lawfully crosses the crosswalk according to the meaning of the above signals under the Road Traffic Act, the defendant who caused a traffic accident to such victim is deemed to have violated the duty to protect pedestrians under Article 24 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the prosecution of this case on the premise that the defendant did not violate the above duty of pedestrian protection, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant did not violate the duty to protect pedestrians under the Road Traffic Act on the following grounds, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated and relevant statutes on the duty to protect pedestrians.

All pedestrians passing along the crosswalks while the green light of the pedestrian signal, etc. is on-and-off without reporting whether or not the green light, such as pedestrian signal, begins before it begins, shall be subject to the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalks (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9598, May 13, 2009).