The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Taking into account the legislative purport of the proviso of Article 3(2)11 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (hereinafter “Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents”), a driver who takes the protective area for children requires more strengthened duty of care, such as driving under the speed above the limited speed. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the fact that the defendant suffered injury to the child by violating the duty of care in the protective area for children can be sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, among the facts charged in this case, the court below found the non-guilty part of the violation of the duty of care in the child protection zone as not guilty on the ground of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On February 3, 2015, the Defendant, who is engaged in driving of the said vehicle at C, is driving the said vehicle at around 18:20 on February 3, 2015, and proceeds from driving the one-lane of the three-lane of the original elementary school located in the Gu/U.S. at Sungnam-si, the Defendant is a child protection zone. Thus, in light of the front bank and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the road conditions of the road, the Defendant neglected the Defendant’s duty of care to drive the said vehicle at the right side of the said vehicle while driving the vehicle at full, and caused the injury of the victim D (8 ) crossing the road to the left side of the said vehicle, such as Gyeong-kin, where it is impossible for the said victim to know the number of days of treatment.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s vehicle was not guilty of violating the duty of care in the child protection zone among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds as set forth in sub-paragraph (2) of the title “2. Not guilty” in the judgment of the lower court, and that the vehicle driven by the Defendant was covered by the comprehensive automobile insurance policy.