교통사고처리특례법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) strings of the instant accident scene (hereinafter “T1”); (b) strings of the two-lanes (hereinafter “T2”); (c) 140 strings of the evidence record; and 212 strings of the two-lanes of the two-lanes (hereinafter “T2”); (d) strings of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the evidence record; and (e) strings of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the evidence record; and (e) strings of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the evidence record (hereinafter “T3”; and (e) 140 strings of the evidence record and 214 strings of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lane.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a motor vehicle in E-highest E in the charges.
On December 1, 2012, the Defendant driven the above car on December 1, 2012, 05:30, while driving the car and driving the high speed road between sub-party - water in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (78-20) along the two-lanes in the two-lanes from the Cheonggu-dong of Seoul to the Cheonggu-dong.
At the same time, G MT truck drivened by F in the three-lanes in the same direction, and thus, the Defendant engaged in driving service had a duty of care to keep the vessel and drive the vessel safely by accurately manipulating the front and right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and received the left-hand part of the mati cargo vehicle in front of the right-hand side of the mati cargo vehicle, with the negligence of driving the 3rd vehicle.
(2).