교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. The summary of the facts charged is the driver of a vehicle with Craddar.
On April 27, 2017, when the Defendant drives the foregoing vehicle as a business of around 19:15, and operates the front sidewalk of the E hospital located in Daegu-gu D while driving the vehicle, it is a road divided into the sidewalk and the roadway, so even though it is required to operate the vehicle on the roadway, the Defendant neglected to operate it on the sidewalk, and received the right hand hand on the right hand of the victim F (F) who is a pedestrian at the direction after driving the vehicle on the sidewalk at an irregular speed.
As a result, the victim suffered injury such as salt, tension, etc. in need of treatment for about 2 weeks.
2. Determination
A. On April 27, 2017, around 19:15, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendant driven his own flame vehicle in front of the E Hospital. However, the Defendant and the defense counsel saw that they walk from the front of the E Hospital to their own flame, but seeing that they walk from the victim and G to their own flame, the Defendant stopped the operation of the vehicle and flapared the vehicle, and even after the passage of the victim and G, she was driving the vehicle again.
When a vehicle of a defendant stops, the injured person is left behind the front side of the vehicle of the defendant, and the injured person is not in the right hand of the victim's right hand after the right hand of the defendant's vehicle in operation.
B. The burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value that leads the judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's benefit as the defendant's interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2008 J. 11, Jan. 20, 201, etc.). From the police to this court, the victim operated the U.S. Radon vehicle in front of the E hospital, and the Defendant's Modon vehicle is a dived motor vehicle operated by the E hospital.