교통사고처리특례법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The Defendant is a person engaged in the operation of a village bus in C.
On January 24, 2016, the Defendant driven the above village bus around 21:15, and led to four lanes near the subway 2-lanes located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seocheon-gu along the scopon road from the scopon road to the scopon road.
At the time, it was night, and before the village bus, the victim D was in a four-lane floor, so there was a duty of care to prevent accidents due to a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle who is in charge of driving a motor vehicle and driving a motor vehicle safely.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected the front city of the above village bus, and neglected the head of the victim's head with the wheels front of the above village bus, and caused the victim's death by two structural strings, etc.
2. In order to prove the facts charged in the instant case, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is a traffic accident report, a traffic accident report, a written statement of the occurrence of the Defendant’s traffic accident, a police suspect examination report, a body of the Defendant’s suspect (on-site and on-site photo, autopsy report, autopsy report), (on-site photo), (on-site photo, reporter and witness), an investigation report, internal investigation report, and a black, video CD, etc.
However, the statement of the police officer stated in the report of traffic accident and the report of traffic accident is the opinion of the investigative agency that investigated the case, and the statement of the defendant (the statement of traffic accident and the protocol of interrogation of the police) is "whether there is a new customer after the departure of the case."
We look at the right white, but the material was displayed, so it was the deceased, and at the time of driving, the person was unable to feel at all.
On the other hand, it is possible to confirm by the body death certificate, etc. that the victim died with the body body of the two parts, that the two frameworks were shocked to the degree of being differentiated with various lightings, and that the bus wheels of the defendant's driver was the front end of the bus.