The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On May 16, 2017, at around 10:00, the Defendant: (a) driven the F real estate in front of the F real estate in Seo-gu, Daegu-gu, along the crosswalk, a three-lane road along the direction of the KTN-distance distance from the front of the crosswalk; (b) stopped from the front line of the crosswalk to the four-lane road; and (c) the vehicle signal was parked in the front line of the crosswalk, but the vehicle signal was changed to the green signal.

At that time, at a crosswalk where a signal, etc. is installed, the pedestrian signal in the crosswalk was changed to a red signal. In such a case, the driver had a duty of care to safely drive the crosswalk by examining whether there was a person who has already entered the crosswalk at the right and right right before starting the driver, and examining whether there was a person who has already entered the crosswalk.

그럼에도 피고인은 이를 게을리 한 채 교통신호가 변경되자 좌우를 살피지 않고 그대로 출발한 과실로 횡단보도를 따라 진행해오던 C 시티100 오토바이의 뒷부분을 위 승합차의 우측 앞 범퍼에 충격케 하여, 위 오토바이 뒷좌석에 탑승하고 있던 피해자 H이 튕겨 도로에 전도되게 하였다.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the death of the victim due to the above occupational negligence at the J Hospital located in the Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, where the victim was under medical treatment at around 13:07 on the same day.

2. Judgment of the court below and a summary of the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court determined that the facts charged were guilty by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence.

B. A summary of the grounds for appeal 1) Inasmuch as there was no predictability and possibility of avoidance of the instant traffic accident by mistake of facts, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have breached his duty of care on duty. Therefore, the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is not established. 2) The sentencing of the lower court of unfair sentencing (one year of suspended execution of April 1) is too unreasonable.

3. The judgment of this Court.