The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the place where the traffic accident in this case occurred is installed along with the bus stops in various routes, and since there are many passengers crossinging without permission as the victim in this case at any time, it shall be deemed that the defendant had a duty of care to operate with the attitude to stop at any time for the safety of pedestrians and to have a duty of care to operate at any time for the safety of pedestrians. In light of the above, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case even if he was fully convicted of

2. Based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that it was difficult to deem that the Defendant was negligent in violating his duty of care on the part of the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant, who carried the bus exclusive lane in transit, was able to believe that the pedestrian would not collapse, following the bus traveling along the opposite lane while the signal on the crosswalk was red, and that there was no special circumstance to exclude this principle of trust.

The following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. In other words, the victim illegally crosss the bus in excess of the center line of the opposite 24 meters away from the front side of the bus that the defendant is driving, and the accident occurred due to the failure of the defendant to take prompt action to avoid this, and the defendant could stop the bus of the defendant by taking the action immediately after finding the victim.

As long as it is not recognized that he/she was able to avoid or avoid to another place, without accurately operating the steering gear, brakes and other devices of the above vehicle, and driving it by means of causing danger and harm to the victim, the defendant.