교통사고처리특례법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant fulfilled his duty of care as a driver in relation to a traffic accident as stated in the judgment of the court below, and even if he fulfilled his ordinary duty of care as a driver, the above traffic accident was obviously unforeseeable, the court below's judgment which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous by mistake
2. Various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the defendant's driving of a vehicle in the crosswalk at the time when the pedestrian signal is on-and-off. This is obvious violation of signal signals, which in itself constitutes a motor vehicle driver's failure to fulfill his duty of care. ② If the defendant stops on the stop line until the vehicle signal is turned on, it would be apparent that the accident of this case would not occur if he did not violate signal signals, and ③ the victim is crossing the crosswalk while the pedestrian signal is on-and-off (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9598, May 14, 2009). ④ The conclusion that the defendant is no longer crossing even though the pedestrian signal is on-and-off on the crosswalk of this case, it is a subjective judgment of the defendant, but rather, the road in question is adjacent to the child protection zone, and it would be objectively anticipated that the pedestrian, etc.'s access to the crosswalk of this case would naturally be safe before the driver's access to the crosswalk.