At the same time, there was a crosswalk without a pedestrian signal, so in such a case, the driver had a duty of care to check whether there was a person who gets on the way to see well the front left, and to drive safely.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and got the body of the victim D (the age of 40) and the victim E (the age of 46) to go beyond the road by taking the front part of the above vehicle driving by the defendant.

After all, the Defendant suffered from the above occupational negligence to the victim D with injury, such as ductal ducts, from the outside of the slots, which requires approximately five weeks of medical treatment, and multiple ductal ductal ducts and ductal ducts that require medical treatment to the victim E for about two weeks.

2. As to whether the instant accident was an accident in the crosswalk, there is evidence as shown in the facts charged in the instant case, including D and E’s statement on the occurrence of each traffic accident, and investigation report on the actual condition of the traffic accident (record 66). However, the traffic accident investigation report was prepared twice with respect to the instant accident, and the victims were in the first investigation report on the actual condition of the traffic accident (proceded 7 pages). However, the victims were in the form of the accident, but the actual condition investigation report on the actual condition of the traffic accident (proced 6 pages of the investigation record) prepared later was changed to the situation where the victims were in the crosswalk, and the victim was in the form of the accident. The witness F, who prepared the investigation report on each of the above actual conditions, stated that the Defendant’s statement, victim D and E were written on the basis of each statement of the Defendant, and the Defendant did not claim that the accident occurred in the crosswalk at the crosswalk.