The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) of the instant traffic accident is not caused by the Defendant’s act of driving a vehicle in violation of the duty to protect pedestrians at crosswalks

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person who drives a passenger car in BA.

On September 26, 2017, around 21:40 on September 26, 2017, the Defendant made the front intersection of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C to turn to the left from D apartment surface.

Since there is an intersection where a yellow on-and-off signal is installed, the driver is obliged to reduce the speed for the person engaged in driving service, to live well in the front, the direction, and the well, and if pedestrians are passing along the crosswalk, they have the duty of care to prevent accidents such as temporarily stopping in front of the crosswalk and sending pedestrians first.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded to turn to the left without temporarily suspending it in front of the crosswalk, and the left part of the victim F (the age of 38) who passed from the right side of the crosswalk to the left side of the crosswalk and the left side side of the vehicle of the Defendant, followed by the front side of the vehicle of the Defendant.

After all, the Defendant suffered injury in the elbow blue blue in the above-mentioned occupational negligence to the victim F, which requires treatment for about 10 days.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of each of the evidence in its judgment.

(c)

Article 3 (2) (proviso) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that "in the case of operating a vehicle in violation of the duty to protect pedestrians at a crosswalk under Article 27 (1) of the Road Traffic Act" shall not apply to cases where the main text of the same paragraph concerning the crime of non-compliance with an intention, and Article 27 (1) of the Road Traffic Act shall also apply.