The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal is that the accident of this case was caused by the shock of the victim who was satisfed even after the signal signal, etc. of the crosswalk was changed from green to red, and thus, it is recognized that the defendant was at fault on duty.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant cannot be recognized as occupational negligence is erroneous.

2. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (1) the defendant was driving ahead of the E pharmacy in Daejeon-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, with a red signal signal on the front of the crosswalk, and the victim was crossing the victim's front at a 1/2 point other than the crosswalk in the front side of the road where the defendant stops, and it seems that the victim had a new 1/her body of the defendant's vehicle at the front end.