The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the record in light of the record, the court below erred by violating the duty to protect pedestrians under Article 27 (1) of the Road Traffic Act on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

Then, the facts charged of this case is a crime falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted in cases where the defendant joined a mutual aid association pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. The judgment of the first instance court, which dismissed a public prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the taxi driving by the defendant was subscribed to a national private taxi mutual aid association at the time of the accident of this case and the procedure for filing a public prosecution in this case

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the said determination by the lower court is justifiable, and there was no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty to protect pedestrians under the Road Traffic Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.