The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The Defendant, at the time of proceeding with the instant crosswalk, temporarily set the vehicle on the crosswalk, but passed the crosswalk after the pedestrian passes.

Therefore, although the Defendant did not violate Article 27 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. According to Article 27(1) of the Road Traffic Act, the driver of any motor vehicle shall temporarily stop in front of the crosswalk (if the motor vehicle is traveling along the crosswalk, referring to the stoppage line at the place where the stoppage line is marked) so as not to obstruct or endanger pedestrians.

“.......”

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant driving a taxi at the apartment 2 at the entrance of the apartment located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, to turn to the left-hand left-hand turn at the entrance of the apartment, and going to the front of the crosswalk installed in front of the C point at that time. Even though pedestrians walk the crosswalk according to the pedestrian signal on and off with green light at that time, the defendant did not stop the front stop line of the crosswalk, but entered the crosswalk at the speed of late, but the pedestrian was going to go through the crosswalk of the front of the defendant.

In applying Article 27 (1) of the Road Traffic Act prior to the above facts, the defendant entered a crosswalk as it is without stopping the stop line, despite the duty to stop in front of the stop line so as not to obstruct the passage of pedestrians or endanger them in the situation where pedestrians are passing the crosswalk of this case. Accordingly, the Road Traffic Act provides that pedestrians who walk the crosswalk of this case shall not obstruct or endanger the crossing of pedestrians.