The defendant shall be innocent.

1. If a pedestrian passes a crosswalk, the driver of the facts charged shall temporarily stop prior to the entry of the crosswalk in order not to obstruct or endanger the crossing of the pedestrian;

Nevertheless, on March 12, 2020, the Defendant violated the duty to protect pedestrians by entering the crosswalk, even though there is a pedestrian who is travelling along the crosswalk while driving a front road of Ulsan-gu B, Ulsan-gu.

2. Article 27(1) of the Road Traffic Act provides, “The driver of any motor vehicle or tram shall temporarily stop in front of the crosswalk (at the place where a stoppage line is marked, referring to the stoppage line) so as not to obstruct the passage of pedestrians or endanger them when pedestrians are passing along the crosswalk.”

The legislative intent of the above provision is to strengthen and protect the safety of pedestrians' lives and bodies who walk the crosswalk by strengthening the driver's duty of care to pedestrians who walk the crosswalk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do17442, Mar. 15, 2017). Since it is apparent in the legal text that the above provision provides for the driver's duty of care to " pedestrians walking the crosswalk," pedestrians deviating from the crosswalk are not subject to the driver's duty of care as provided by Article 27 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant passed the crosswalk of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the records of this case, the bicycle crossing is also a part of the road indicated with safety signs so that the bicycle can cross the road (Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the Road Traffic Act) and the part of the road indicated with safety signs so that pedestrians can cross the road.