The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant is not a violation of signal, since the walking of the crosswalks passed the crosswalks in a red state, and the accident occurred at the point where the crosswalks passed.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable because of its excessive sentencing.

2. Determination

A. (1) misunderstanding of facts) An intersection is installed adjacent to the crosswalk, and the vehicle signal apparatus is installed only at the intersection, the red light of the vehicle in the intersection shall be deemed to be concurrently ordered to stop the vehicle in the intersection and in front of the crosswalk. In addition, in case where the walking, etc. in the crosswalk is green, all the vehicles shall stop on the crosswalk stop, and furthermore, they shall not turn off the crosswalk. However, in a case where the walking, etc. in the crosswalk is changed redly, and thus, if the walking, etc. in the crosswalk loses its character as a crosswalk, the vehicle in the right way may turn off without impeding the traffic of other vehicles and horses passing through the crosswalk and passing pursuant to the new subparagraph.

Therefore, in a case where the vehicle signal of the intersection is red and the pedestrian crossing adjacent to the intersection is green, if the driver of the vehicle does not stop in front of the above crosswalk and the result of the bodily injury caused by occupational negligence while the vehicle passes through the crosswalk, it constitutes “fence of signal” under Article 3(1) and proviso of Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. In this case, as long as the act of violating the above signal falls under the direct cause of traffic accident, the crime of causing occupational injury caused by the above signal violation does not interfere with the establishment of the crime of causing occupational negligence

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da8222 Decided July 28, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 97Do1835 Decided October 10, 1997). (2) In light of the spirit of substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous.