Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 100,000.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On March 24, 2018, the Defendant driven a B rocketing car on March 24, 2018, and continued to move to the D Center at the direction of C from the C to the D Center at the distance of 93 ri-ri, Seo-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyangyang-gu.

The driver of any motor vehicle shall not obstruct the passage of pedestrians crossing the road according to the signals of the signal apparatus, since the signal lights are installed and the traffic is controlled.

Nevertheless, the defendant, despite the fact that one pedestrian in the crosswalk installed at the intersection, has dried up the crosswalk according to the pedestrian signals, obstructed the passage of pedestrians by bypassing the crosswalk.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Taking into account the regulatory background, control photographs, and photographs (the legislative purport of Article 27 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is to strengthen the driver's duty of care to the pedestrians passing the crosswalk and to protect the safety of pedestrians' lives and bodies who walk the crosswalk more strongly. The driver of any motor vehicle shall take measures, such as temporary suspension, regardless of whether the pedestrian passes the crosswalk, if there is a pedestrian crossing in accordance with the direction of signal apparatus, so as not to obstruct the passage of pedestrians by taking measures, such as temporary suspension, regardless of whether the pedestrian passes the crosswalk (the above judgment of Supreme Court Decision 2016Do1742 Decided March 15, 2017).

Although the purport that the passage of the pedestrian should be seen is based on the premise of “the situation where crossing of the pedestrian is obstructed or any danger is not caused to the passage of the pedestrian,” and thus, the passage of the pedestrian was obstructed and the danger to the passage was caused.

The legal doctrine applicable to this case is not applicable to this case.

See the above evidence.