At around 06:00 on November 30, 2015, the Defendant driven the above cargo vehicles, and became to enter the E resting area D with the right of door delivery (exclusive road) from the E resting area located in D at the time of wave.

At the time, the driver changed the lane from the fourth lane to the third lane while entering the motorway at the rest area. In such a case, there was a duty of care that could not interfere with the normal passage of other vehicles in the same direction by prior notice of change of course and well-seeing the direction for the driver.

Nevertheless, when the Defendant neglected this and negligently changed the course as it was, the Defendant received the front part of the G-wing Cargo (hereinafter “victim Cargo”) driven by the Victim F (50 years of age) who was driving at the rear in the aftermast (50 years of age) as the rear part of the Defendant Cargo.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim's death by the above occupational negligence at around 06:54 of the same day through a low blood transfusion shock.

2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed from the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the victim seems to have been able to avoid shocking the truck of this case by properly manipulating the brakes or steering gear, recognizing the entry of the truck of this case by the truck of this case, and properly manipulating the brakes or steering gear. Nevertheless, it is likely that the victim would have driven the truck of this case.

Therefore, there is causation between the defendant's breach of duty of care and the victim's death.