The defendant shall be innocent.

A. In fact, although the Defendant changed the vehicle at a speed to verify the presence of a passenger on the right side of the road and change its course at a sufficiently late, the victim did not perform his/her duty of care at the speed exceeding 60 km as soon as possible while driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol and caused the shock of the damaged vehicle due to his/her shock. The Defendant not only performed his/her duty of care necessary to change the vehicle, but also did not predict that the damaged vehicle will be recovered due to collision with the Defendant, so there was no fault on the part of the Defendant, and if the damaged vehicle did not drive the vehicle over-speed beyond the speed limit, the damaged vehicle was not recovered.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The facts charged in the instant case and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case based on the evidence in its judgment.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of Cro-type taxi.

On March 21, 2016, the Defendant driven the above vehicle around 04:45 on March 21, 2016, and driven the road of 832 lanes in front of the 832 film elementary school from the mountain bank to the Seoul bank. The Defendant changed its course from the mountain bank to the Seoul bank.

In this case, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to change the vehicle line safely by taking into account the traffic situation of the lane that will change the course prior to the change of course.

Nevertheless, the defendant is negligent in neglecting this and changing course to a two-lane or a three-lane, and the part above the left-hand side of the E-blade D driving in the same direction as the victim D driving in the same direction is the defendant's vehicle.