The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) was 14:22:34 on the day of the instant case, the victim was already able to be identified on the left-hand side of the black box, and the victim was shocked by the vehicle operated by the Defendant around 14:22:37 on the day of the instant case.

However, since the victim's walking speed is very slow and the recognition response rate of ordinary drivers is between 0.8 to 1 second, if the defendant properly examined the front door, the occurrence of this case could be avoided.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the instant facts charged while sufficiently explaining the grounds for its determination.

The judgment of the court below is 0.733 seconds from the point of time to the point of time when pedestrians first discovered at the front glass, and 0.13 seconds from the point of time to the point of time when pedestrians discovered at the point of time when pedestrians first discovered at the front glass, and 1.13 seconds from the point of time when pedestrians attempted to move immediately at the point of time when the vehicles are stopped. ② The speed at the time when the vehicles of the defendant entered the intersection of this case was about 23 km/h of the speed at the time when the vehicles of this case and the defendant reached the intersection of this case, and the defendant was about 23 km/h of the speed at the time of the vehicle of this case, and the defendant appeared to have a negative effect on the speed of the vehicle of this case at the time when the vehicle of this case reached the intersection of the intersection of this case, ③ the speed at the time of the vehicle of this case was reduced to 9.5 km/ 10 km and the speed at the time of the vehicle of this case.