The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the fact that the Defendant had already entered the crosswalk before passing through the crosswalk of this case, and that there is a high possibility that the Defendant had already discovered the victim before leaving the crosswalk of this case due to night or nearby light at the time of the accident of this case, etc., the accident of this case occurred due to the Defendant’s occupational negligence.

I would like to say.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant.

2. The lower court determined that ① the instant crosswalk was located at the point where the Defendant passed a dry field crossing as stated in the facts charged in the instant facts charged, but the Defendant was waiting for the signal at the front stop line of the instant crosswalk, following the front direction of the instant crosswalk, the crossing was going to the instant crosswalk, and the speed at that time was approximately 33 km, and ② the Defendant passed the instant crosswalk first, around 2 seconds before passing the instant crosswalk, the Defendant was driving the instant crosswalk. The said taxi was occupied by the instant crosswalk after the said taxi passed the instant crosswalk, and the Defendant was unable to avoid this, and the Defendant was waiting for the pedestrian signal of the instant crosswalk at the time of the instant accident; ③ The pedestrian signal of the instant crosswalk was a stop signal at the time of the instant accident; ④ The Defendant appears to have opened the instant crosswalk at the front direction of the instant vehicle, and the victim appears to have been relatively in front of the instant vehicle’s front road or the instant image, but the victim appears to have been relatively in front of the instant vehicle’s front road.