A. On September 22, 2017, the Defendant, who is engaged in driving the Ck5 taxi, was driving the said taxi at around 22:03 on September 22, 2017, along the passage in the front apartment complex of Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, to the luminous path on the side of the main apartment complex 202.

At the time, such a passage is the left-hand passage and night, so in such a case, the driver of the motor vehicle has the duty of care to see the front door and safely drive the steering gear, brakes and other devices and to prevent the accident in advance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and neglected to do so, and neglected to do so, and neglected the chest and part of the victim E (the victim E) (the victim E) who was used on the right side of the road that was in progress, with the wheels front of the taxi driving of the Defendant.

Ultimately, around September 22, 2017, at around 22:52, the Defendant’s occupational negligence, caused the death of the victim in the G Hospital Emergency room located in Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant accident”). B. In light of the following, the lower court’s judgment is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone caused the instant accident due to the Defendant’s breach of the duty of care to prevent the accident in advance, and on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the Defendant was acquitted by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

① The instant accident site is a road in an apartment complex, and there is an apartment entrance connected to a luminous new road at the front of the location of the instant accident, based on the direction of the Defendant’s vehicle operation at the time of the instant accident, and the rear side is about 13% of the gradient in the front side of the instant accident, and the victim is bound to the front end at the time of the instant accident.