The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: In the case of the victims of the instant accident, the injury inflicted by the bus passengers (hereinafter “batters of the instant case”) who the Defendant driven from among the victims of the instant accident is directly related to the Defendant’s act of violating the duty to protect pedestrians at the crosswalk, the court below dismissed the prosecution against this part of the facts charged on the ground of the subscription to the mutual aid.

2. Determination

A. According to the prosecutor's assertion, if the result of the injury was caused by the violation of the duty to protect pedestrians on the crosswalk as stipulated under Article 27 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, and the direct relation between the violation of the duty to protect pedestrians and the result of the injury, the act of violating the proviso of Article 3 (2) 6 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, but the place where the passengers of the instant bus were injured is clearly distinguishable from the crosswalk. The direct cause of the instant bus passengers' injury is not because the Defendant neglected the duty to protect pedestrians on the crosswalk, but because the direct cause of the instant bus passengers' injury was not due to the Defendant's neglect of the duty to protect pedestrians on the crosswalk, and therefore, it is directly related to the act of violating the duty to protect pedestrians on the crosswalk.

In light of the fact that the scope of application of the proviso of Article 3(2)6 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is likely to be excessively wide, etc., it is difficult to deem that the bus passengers suffered bodily injury in the instant case is directly related to the Defendant’s act of violating the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk.

B. On the other hand, the prosecutor's crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) against the bus passengers of this case constitutes the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) against the victim L, on the premise that the court below constitutes a substantive concurrent crime.