The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal in this case is that the victim has dried the crosswalk on the red signal, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have neglected his/her duty of care as a driver.

In addition, it cannot be said that there was a criminal intent of escape under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, even if the defendant left the site, since the victim did not express an active intention about the existence and degree of injury, and there was no external wounds to deem the need for medical treatment.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the facts and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. We look at the violation of duty of care in the crosswalk, and the following circumstances that can be recognized by the court below by integrating the evidence legitimately adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the accident site of this case is the children's park front of the children's park, and all vehicles are obliged to temporarily stop in front of the crosswalk in order not to obstruct or endanger pedestrians' crossing when pedestrians are passing the crosswalk (Article 27 (1) of the Road Traffic Act). (2) The victim began to stop the crosswalk by reporting green signal on the crosswalk, and the signal was changed by nearly every time around the crosswalk, and the signal was cut down by the defendant in the course of moving the crosswalk at a higher walking speed. In light of the fact that it is difficult to view the victim's walking method, time, route, etc. to the extent that it is impossible to expect it at all in light of ordinary practices of walking along the crosswalk, the defendant's duty of care as a driver in the accident of this case.