Even if the defendant did not discover the victim who displayed the crossing on the ground of the left hand of the intersection with a large number of crosswalks, and did so, and the defendant was also found to have violated the duty of care, but the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the violation of the duty of care.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is engaged in driving service of urban buses No. 410.

On July 22, 2015, the Defendant driven the above city bus on July 23:15, 2015, while driving the city bus, it turned down the private distance from the Gu citizens to the middle school protection area in the middle school located in the city of industry at the end of the five-lane.

At the time, the crosswalk is installed, and the pedestrian signal is not changed to the stop signal, and it seems to be a clerical error in the "the changed place".

Since there have been many times, the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to ensure that the driver of the vehicle is responsible for preventing accidents by accurately operating and safely driving the brake and steering gear in front of the crosswalk, and to ensure that the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and did not properly look at the existence of pedestrians in front of the crosswalk, and the Defendant’s failure to walk the crosswalk to the port from the right side of the direction of the Defendant’s proceeding, seems to be the victim E (the remaining and the age of 66) to be a clerical error in the “nurth” left side of the bus above.

It seems that the upper part is beyond the upper part and the left side is a clerical error in the left side.

The victim was born with the back wheels.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the death of the victim in his/her job by occupational negligence as above.

B. The lower court’s judgment is the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.