The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The Defendant violated the duty to protect pedestrians under Article 27(1) of the Road Traffic Act, since he did not stop in front of the crosswalk in order to prevent the victim from hindering or endangering the crossing at the time of the accident stated in the indictment.

2. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the above reasons for appeal, and the court below dismissed the prosecution of this case on the ground that the defendant did not violate the duty to protect pedestrians under Article 27 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, in light of the above recognized facts, on the following grounds: (a) there was no vehicle signal apparatus, pedestrian light, and vehicle aid, etc. at the point where the accident of this case occurred; (b) the victim was in a road dog even before the defendant's driver entered the crosswalk; and (c) the victim was under a right right before the defendant's vehicle entered the crosswalk; and (d) the accident of this case occurred.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the court below's determination that there is no proof as to the defendant's violation of the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk at the time of the accident in this case is just and acceptable, and it cannot be viewed that there was an error affecting the conclusion by misunderstanding the facts in the judgment of the

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.