Whether the pedestrian signal is changed to the pedestrian stop and the signal for the progress of the vehicle, and whether the driver of the vehicle is obliged to protect the pedestrian who has suspended the passage of the crosswalk;

If the victim stopped the passage of the crosswalk on the central line of the road along which the pedestrian crossing is changed to the traffic signal of the signal apparatus, waits for the passage of the vehicle, and stops, it is difficult to view the above victim as a pedestrian on the crosswalk. Therefore, even if the vehicle stop signal is changed to the ongoing signal, the defendant's driver, who operated the vehicle, has violated the duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident, should not be deemed to have violated the duty of care to protect the pedestrian under Article 44 subparagraph 3 of the Road Traffic Act, regardless of the fact that the driver's vehicle, who operated the vehicle, has violated the duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident.

Article 3 (2) (proviso)6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 44 subparagraph 3 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 268 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 83No2616 delivered on July 26, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the crosswalk in which the accident in this case occurred is a place where a signal, etc. for pedestrians is installed, and the victim's accommodation was obstructed by the signal, along with the instant signal, and when the signal, etc. came to the center line while crossinging the crosswalk, and the signal, etc. was obstructed by the rapid change into the central line, and the 2-string taxi, which was under the atmosphere, had time to view the distance from the vehicle as the distance with the vehicle, and that there was time to cross the vehicle again while crossing it, the court below held that the Defendant's act does not constitute a driving in violation of the duty to protect pedestrians provided for in Article 44 subparagraph 3 of the Road Traffic Act, as provided for in Article 3 (2) 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, while driving the vehicle in this case, while driving the vehicle in front at approximately 200 meters prior to the above crosswalk, and it did not change the vehicle stop signal to the proceeding signal.

2. The duty to protect pedestrians provided for in Article 44 subparagraph 3 of the Road Traffic Act is imposed on the driver to protect pedestrians passing the crosswalk. As in the case of this case, if the above victim stopped the passage of the crosswalk on the central line of the road, which is changed to the signal for the stop and the progress of the vehicle while passing the crosswalk along the crosswalk according to the signal apparatus, and waits for the passage of the vehicle, it is difficult to see that the above victim is a pedestrian passing the crosswalk.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant violated the duty to protect pedestrians under Article 44 subparagraph 3 of the Road Traffic Act, aside from the fact that he was negligent in violating the duty to protect pedestrians as a driver of the accident prevention.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no reason to interpret the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in the judgment below from a different point of view.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)