The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On October 18, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around October 10, 2014, the Defendant: (b) driven the B urban bus at the front crosswalk of the 293 square meters (hereinafter “instant crosswalk”); (c) was driving the B-lane from the Seoul to the Incheon bank; and (d) was driving the two-lanes from the Seoul to the Incheon bank; (b) the Defendant violated the duty of care to check and safely drive the road by checking whether he or she was a person who sets the road at the front section of the road; and (c) the Defendant violated the duty of care to check whether he or she was a person who sets the road, and whether he or she had the duty of care to safely drive the road.

2. The gist of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant was proceeding with the green signal of the vehicle, but the victim was satisfe in a red state, and thus, the Defendant did not breach his duty of care.

3. Determination

A. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court.

(1) The Defendant, while driving a bus, was passing the crosswalk at a speed of about 40 km per hour on the road with a restricted speed of 60 km per hour, such as vehicle signal, etc., but the victim was placed in the red signal, such as pedestrian signal, etc.

(2) The Defendant discovered the victim and operated the bus, and the victim was faced by the right side of the bus.

B. If the signal at the time of the occurrence of the traffic accident was sent to the vehicle, even if the signal at the time of the accident is sent to the crosswalk where the signal, etc. is available, the signal did not reach the crosswalk before the crosswalk

Therefore, it cannot be said that the driver violated the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalks under the Road Traffic Act, and the driver of the motor vehicle is not obliged to drive the motor vehicle by disregarding the red signal such as pedestrian signals on the crosswalks and neglecting the driver's duty of care for driving the motor vehicle in advance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 85Do1228 delivered on September 10, 1985, and Supreme Court Decision 85Do1893 delivered on November 12, 1985, etc.). Defendant is the Defendant.