The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor appealed that the court below did not recognize the defendant's violation of the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk but did not err in misunderstanding legal principles or misunderstanding of facts

Article 27 (1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that when a pedestrian passes a crosswalk, a vehicle shall temporarily stop in front of the crosswalk.

Examining the submitted evidence, it was not easy to confirm whether there is a person who intends to enter the crosswalk in India because the road in which the accident occurred is installed a blocking between the roadway and the delivery, and the defendant's vehicle is recognized as not temporarily in front of the crosswalk.

However, the accident of this case can be seen as having occurred by an ombudsman when the defendant's vehicle enters the crosswalk.

It was known that if the defendant paid a little attention, the victim would attempt to cut the crosswalk.

It is insufficient to recognize that the defendant violated the duty to protect pedestrians under the law on the sole ground that the defendant did not temporarily stop in front of the crosswalk without recognizing other circumstances such as the fact that the victim started to enter the crosswalk in a common way.

We affirm the judgment below to the same purport.

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed for no reason.