The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by a mistake of facts, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant violated the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk while driving a vehicle around 10:10 on May 31, 2014, and thereby, caused the victim D who entered the crosswalk to cross the crosswalk when green light is a green light, and suffered the pelle, etc. between the left-hand off batteries.

B. In the misapprehension of the legal principle, the victim entered the crosswalk when the pedestrian signal is green damaged, etc.

Even if it is a green light, it should be protected as a pedestrian who has entered the crosswalk, like a pedestrian who has entered the crosswalk.

2. In the case of an ex officio determination, the prosecutor stated the applicable provisions in Articles 3(1) and 4(1)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act “Article 3(2)” in the “Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

In this regard, the subject of the judgment was changed by the court, which stated that the facts charged were modified as follows, and this court permitted it.

Since the subject of the judgment was changed in the trial, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

Therefore, the revised charges are not judged separately because the prosecutor's appeal was excluded from the object of inducement judgment).The defendant, at around 10:10 on May 31, 2014, as a person who is engaged in driving the C options car, led to the right bypassing the road of the post office distance from the office located in the Geumsan-gun, Geumsan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Geumsan-gun to the speed of about 30 KK at a speed of about 10 K per hour from the direction of the Jak-gu.

Since a crosswalk is installed on the front side, the driver had a duty of care to check the safety of the course by checking well the right and the right of the front prior to the right of the right of the front and the right of the front and the right of the front.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and neglected it.