The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person engaging in driving service of QM6 automobiles.

On April 28, 2020, the Defendant driven the said car at around 15:06, while driving the said car, led to the speed of about 28.8 km at the speed of speed from the apartment room of E apartment to the F elementary school at the speed of about 28.8 km.

Since a crosswalk without signal is installed, and it is designated as a child protection zone, in such a case, there was a duty of care to check whether there is a child, and to safely drive the crosswalk in order to reduce the speed for the driver.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded without reducing the speed in front of the crosswalk and caused the Defendant to go beyond the road by putting the victim G (the 10-year old) who dried the road along the crosswalk on the right side of the Defendant’s direction from the left side of the crosswalk to the right side of the crosswalk.

Defendant 1 suffered injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence, such as the outer side of the left-hand side and the bones bones of internal side in need of approximately eight weeks medical treatment.

항소 이유의 요지 이 사건 사고 장소가 초등학교 앞 도로이고, 사고 시간이 하교시간으로 어린이들의 통행이 빈번한 때이며, 도로에 정차된 차량들 로 시야가 제한되어 있었고, 피해자가 하차한 차량이 비상등을 켠 채로 정차 중이었으므로, 피고인에게는 피해자가 갑자기 도로를 횡단할 것을 예상하여 위 승용차의 속도를 줄이고 전방 좌우를 주시할 업무상 주의의무가 있었다.

Although the Defendant neglected this duty of care and the accident of this case occurred, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case.