The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The driver of a vehicle with the summary of the grounds for appeal has a duty to temporarily stop in front of the crosswalk in order to verify whether there is a pedestrian who enters the crosswalk, but the accused has neglected to do so and caused a traffic accident.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the premise that the defendant did not violate the duty of care is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. On the other hand, the court below held that ① the instant accident site is a two-lane section located between apartment complexes; ② the width of one lane is about 2.7m to 3.0m; ② the restricted speed is about 60km/h; ② the vehicle is parked on the two-lane of the Defendant’s moving direction at the time of the instant accident; ③ the Defendant was driving at the point of the instant accident at the speed of 36.54m/h (Presumption) with the above restricted speed depending on the first lane; ④ the Defendant’s vehicle was driving between the vehicles parked at the crosswalk, which is the point where the instant accident occurred; ④ the Defendant’s vehicle was driving between the instant accident site and the two-lanes, which is the one where it was difficult for the victim to reach the direction of traffic on the front side of the said vehicle; ⑤ The Defendant, at the time of the instant accident, was driving the vehicle at the center where it was found that it was difficult for the victim to immediately identify the vehicle at the time of the instant accident.

In full view of the fact that there is no evidence to view, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is premised on the occurrence of the instant accident by the defendant's negligence.