Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The circumstances as shown in the judgment of the court below and the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, namely, ① The accident of this case is an accident caused by the Defendant’s negligence in driving without paying attention to the safety of children within the children’s protection zone, rather than an accident caused by the Defendant’s negligence in driving the vehicle on the left side of the road behind the truck parked in the direction-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the Defendant’s vehicle and the pedestrian signal was faced with the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the red crosswalk, and ② according to the statement of reply to the appraisal commission submitted by the Prosecutor at the trial, the speed of the vehicle immediately before the accident was presumed to be about 30.32 to 35 km per hour, but it is presumed to be an estimate, and even if it is accurate at the time, the Defendant violated the speed limit within the children protection zone.

In light of the circumstances surrounding the instant accident, etc., it is difficult to readily conclude that proximate causal relationship exists between the instant accident and the instant accident, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the Defendant violated the traffic restriction speed of the motor vehicle in the children protection zone stipulated in Article 12(1) of the Road Traffic Act.

The victim is due to negligence that violates the duty to drive while paying attention to the safety of children.