The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant suffered an injury by shocking the victim without permission due to the negligence of operating the vehicle in excess of 30 km of the restricted speed within the children protection zone and without due care to the safety of the surrounding children.

B. Even if it is unclear that the Defendant was running beyond 30 km of the restricted speed, the location of the instant accident is the children protection zone for the front school immediately before the elementary school, and as at the time, the elementary school students are lower school hours, so it can be sufficiently anticipated that the elementary school students under the child protection zone could grow suddenly among the vehicles. Considering the above points, the Defendant fulfilled the duty of care as necessary on the sole basis of complying with the restricted speed and signal.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(c)

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. The Defendant charged with the instant charges is a person engaging in driving a car in CSpo-type.

On June 12, 2014, the Defendant driven the above car on the 16:15th day of Jun. 12, 2014, and proceeded one way in front of the mountain village, which was located in the 311-lane 7 in the circulation of the Busan Shipping Daegu Metropolitan City, from the beer Do to the Yong-Nam apartment at an indefinite speed.

At the same time, vehicles were stopped in the opposite lane to the children protection zone where the sign of the children protection zone was installed in the above elementary school, and there is a duty of care to reduce the speed, take the right and the right of the driver, and drive the vehicle with due care for the safety of children.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to do so.