The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles found guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, but did not recognize the violation of the duty to protect pedestrians in the content of occupational negligence. However, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the victim can be deemed to have commenced crossing before the green light is flickering. Although pedestrian signal was changed to red light at the time of the accident in this case, it can be deemed that the nature as pedestrian protection obligation is maintained even if it was changed to red light.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which did not recognize the violation of the duty to protect pedestrians is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment without prison labor, two years of suspended execution, one hundred and twenty hours of community service, and forty hours of attending the compliance driving course) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legislative purport of the provisions of the Act on the Obligations to Protect Pedestrians for Determination of misunderstanding of Facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, all pedestrians passing the crosswalk while the green light, such as pedestrian signal, etc., starts with on-and-off warning prior to the flickering signal, shall be subject to the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9598, May 13, 2009). However, in a case where the traffic of pedestrians is prohibited due to a red light, if the passage of pedestrians is changed to a red light, it shall be deemed that they lose the character of the crosswalk, and therefore, it shall not be deemed that they are obligated to protect pedestrians.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Do1835 delivered on October 10, 1997, Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2939 delivered on October 9, 2001, Supreme Court Decision 86Do549 delivered on May 27, 1986, etc.). According to the records of this case, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, as properly stated by the court below, cannot be readily concluded that the victim began to cross the road before the light of the pedestrian signal.