The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The driver of the grounds for appeal shall drive the vehicle with the duty of care more strengthened than the ordinary duty of care, as well as the duty to operate the vehicle at a speed of 30 km or less per hour in the child protection zone.

When considering the current status of the road of this case, traffic situation, lack of children's ability to avoid accidents, etc., the court below dismissed the public prosecution without recognizing it as a violation of the defendant's duty of care, there is an error of misunderstanding of legal principles

2. The driver of the vehicle shall observe the restricted speed (30 km in the city) in the child protection zone and drive the vehicle while paying attention to safety of children (Article 12(1) and (3) of the Road Traffic Act). Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, the defendant violated his duty to ensure safety of children in the child protection zone and thereby causing bodily injury to the victim.

It is difficult to recognize it.

Around the time the Defendant immediately left the instant accident site, urban bus stops on the opposite lane, and passengers were getting on and off from the bus.

The victim (7) gets off from the city bus and intending to cross the road without permission on the rear side of the city bus gets off the front part of the passenger car of the defendant.

At the time, the defendant was driving at a low speed of 15 km per hour, and the victim immediately operated the brake system after urban bus, but did not avoid the accident.

Even if the road in this case is one lane for passing along an apartment complex or the bus stops on the opposite lane, the defendant has a duty to become aware of the progress of the vehicle and drive the vehicle due to the light glass, etc., even if the bus stops on the opposite lane.

It is difficult to see and even if so,.