Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that it is difficult to see it is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion.

2. Determination

A. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaging in driving CD car.

On May 13, 2015, the Defendant: (a) in light of the entry of the fact-finding survey report on traffic accidents and the situation in which the bus of this case conflicts with the Defendant’s vehicle and the vehicle of this case, the Defendant determined that the “the side of the two sides of the office” in the part of the Defendant’s bypassing to enter into “the room of both sides” as stated in the indictment is deemed to be a clerical error in the “the side of the two sides”.

In order to enter into the country, it was conducted bypassing.

The accident place is where the direction prohibiting the right-hand by the intersection is placed a high sign going on the surface.

In such cases, the driver of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to confirm whether there is a motor vehicle traveling along the intersection by reducing speed and checking well the direction of the road, and to prevent the accident in advance by driving the motor vehicle safely according to the traffic direction.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected such duty of care and received the front part of G urban bus driving by the victim F (hereinafter “instant bus”), which was driven by the victim F, who was in the course of going from the bank of the office on the surface of the flood on the right side of the Defendant’s side without being negligent in the bypassing.

Ultimately, the Defendant is guilty of occupational negligence as above.