The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the point where the instant accident occurred is a narrow crossing of the two-lanes of crosswalks where the passage of the vehicle or pedestrians is frequent, and thus, even though the Defendant was obligated to take appropriate measures, such as temporary suspension or reduction of speed, the Defendant was also obligated to do so. In light of the fact that the Defendant was unable to properly see the direction of the front female, and the Defendant was found to be late due to the fault that the Defendant neglected to perform the duty of the front direction while driving the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court below is as follows: (a) the point at which the accident in this case occurred is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below; (b) the point at which the accident in this case occurred the accident in this case was equipped with signal apparatus at each direction for the passage of the vehicle, and (b) the point at which the accident occurred at 9 seconds from the time of the reproduction commencement of CDs containing the accident images; and (c) the Defendant’s progress signal at the time of this case was continuously green light from the time of the CD reproduction commencement; (d) it is sufficient for the Defendant to trust and proceed with the signal, etc. at the pedestrian crosswalk for a long time; and (e) it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had a duty of care to neglect pedestrian signal, and that there was any negligence on the part of the Defendant.

In the same purport, it is proper that the court below acquitted the defendant, and there is no error of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles.

3. Conclusion.