도로교통법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the degree of negligence required for the violation of the duty of safe driving under the Road Traffic Act is strict compared to the degree of negligence required in the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. Thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant did not take proper measures such as stopping the bus despite the defendant's awareness that the victim, while under the influence of alcohol, she was in front of the bus, or avoiding the bus even though the victim passed by the bus after governance, constitutes a violation of the duty of safe driving under the Road Traffic Act, even though it is sufficiently sufficient that the defendant violated the duty of safe driving under the Road Traffic Act, there is insufficient evidence to prove the charges
2. The judgment of the court below held that ① the defect of the defendant intending to collapse along the road by the victim's hand was a space between the vehicles where the victim was parked in the road, and the course was reduced by the speed of the bus driven by the defendant, and the damage was sustained by the victim as the left-hand side of the bus; ② the victim did not have any special secret or ordinary movement when the victim collapses the way to the right-hand side of the bus operated by the defendant; ③ the victim was passing through the governance of the bus of the defendant, and the victim was used by the victim with his own cross-way in the right-hand side of the bus of the defendant driver; ④ The victim was a space between the vehicles where the victim was parked in the road; ④ the victim was a space between the vehicles where the victim was parked, and there was no sufficient space for the victim to walk from the bus to the left-hand side of the bus operated by the defendant; ⑤ the driver's speed of the bus of the defendant was fast and the driver's identity cannot be seen as impeding.