Residence

Reference domicile

The Defendant is engaged in driving a motorcycle of Seoul ○○○○○○○○○○ Head O1100.

On February 13, 2015, the Defendant driven the above motorcycle at around 10: Around 10: Around 10, the Defendant was driving along the road front of the ○○ Building located at ○○○○ at the center of Seocho-gu Seoul, along four lanes from the south terminal distance to the south terminal distance. The driver of any motor vehicle shall well live well before and after the vehicle, while operating the steering gear, brakes and other devices of the motor vehicle accurately, and shall not drive the motor vehicle at such a speed or in such a manner as may inflict any danger and injury on other persons, depending on the traffic conditions and the structure and performance of the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not discover the victim B coming from the dead vehicle company without permission due to negligence when he neglected to cross the road at the front city, and received the above motor vehicle bicycle driving by the defendant and suffered injury, such as the removal of the head and bones of the closed head in need of treatment for about five weeks.

Judgment

According to the records of this case ( particularly CCTV video images), the following facts are recognized.

A. The Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged, driven a motor device, along four-lanes on the side of the alternate distance in the south-west terminal, along the four-lane distance.

B. At the time, there were two-lanes and three-lanes in the direction of the defendant driving along, and the four-lanes are moving along the four-lanes at a speed lower than that of the restriction.

C. The victim, as a male under 31 years of age, went back from India to the opposite 7th line of way that the defendant was running, without permission, at a rapid speed, and led to a collision between the vehicles located in the said 2 and 3 lanes, and the parts behind the motor device bicycle driven by the defendant are strongly conflicting.

D. Accordingly, the victim suffered injury as stated in the facts charged, and the defendant also sustained injury by exceeding the motor bicycle along with the motor device.

As a defendant who operates a motor bicycle, he/she has a duty of care not to drive a bicycle at a speed or in a manner that harms and obstructs other people according to road traffic conditions and the structure and performance of the motor vehicle, while accurately operating the steering gear, brakes, and other devices of the motor vehicle as stated in the facts charged.

However, in this case immediately after the victim crosses without permission at a rapid speed of seven-lanes from India to the opposite part, and immediately after the passage between the vehicles located at three-lanes in the direction of the defendant's driving, the part behind the motor device bicycle of the defendant is strongly conflicting. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been negligent in performing the above duty of care, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Rather, according to CCTV video, the victim took the side side of the bicycle of the motor device operated by the defendant with strong body, and the defendant seems to have never avoided the above accident.

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, and thus, the court acquitted the defendant pursuant to the latter part of Article 325