The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Unlike the crosswalk immediately after the general crossing of the gist of the grounds for appeal, there is a stop line in front of the crosswalk of this case, so the defendant's act constitutes a violation of signal, as long as the defendant passed the crosswalk without temporarily suspending it.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the crosswalk of this case is a crosswalk that is emitted from the right-hand lane, and a stop line is installed in front thereof, and the defendant can recognize the fact that the pedestrian signal on the crosswalk of this case passes through without temporarily suspending in front of the stop line when it is green.

B. (1) The court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the signal apparatus on the crosswalk cannot be deemed as the signal apparatus for pedestrian crossing traffic to the pedestrian who intends to pass the crosswalk, and therefore, if the signal apparatus for pedestrian traffic becomes a green, it does not constitute a violation of the signal apparatus even if the driver passed the crosswalk. Thus, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(2) As the prosecutor asserts in the grounds of appeal, the fact that a stop line is installed in front of the crosswalk of this case is as seen earlier, but Article 27 (1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "the driver of any motor vehicle shall temporarily stop in front of the crosswalk (referred to a stop line at a place where a stop line is marked off) so as not to impede the crossing of pedestrians or endanger pedestrians (including a bicycle driver who gets off a bicycle and walk the bicycle pursuant to Article 13-2 (6)) when they walk the crosswalk, and the driver of any motor vehicle shall always stop in front of the crosswalk."