The case where the driver was at fault of the driver who left the vehicle in the manner that he puts a single term into the engine and sets up the moving key in the vehicle.

In the event that an accident occurs due to the driver's driving of a vehicle, the driver has a duty of care to take all measures to prevent the accident, such as giving due attention to the driver's landing of the vehicle first or deducting the driver's speed from the driver's accident, even though the driver's act was a direct cause of the accident, and then the driver has a duty of care to take all measures to prevent the accident in advance, such as leaving the above child from driving the vehicle first, leaving the 11-year old-older in the string and leaving the string in the string and leaving the string, and taking the stringer's string, the driver's negligence is a causal relationship between the result of the accident and the law.

Article 268 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Seo Jong-hwan

Suwon District Court Decision 85No1132 delivered on April 10, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the circumstance of the accident of this case based on such macroficial evidence is just 11 years old and 9 months old at the time of the accident, and it is reasonable to view that the non-indicted 1 was negligent in the operation of the vehicle without any further duty of care in light of the detailed circumstances of the accident, even if the non-indicted 1 was placed in the first place of the accident, because the non-indicted 1, who was a student in the sixth year of the national school, left the front house and started the accident while the non-indicted 1, who was a student in the sixth year of the national school, caused the non-indicted 1, and started the accident of this case while the vehicle was in the process of the accident of the non-indicted 1, and it is reasonable to view that the non-indicted 1, who was aware of the fact that the non-indicted 1, in light of the legal principles as to the accident of this case, he did not have a duty of care to prevent the non-indicted 2 from being negligent in the vehicle.

In addition, the Supreme Court precedents that point out the theory of the lawsuit do not seem to be suitable for the case, unlike the case, and there is no argument that the judgment of the court below goes against the Supreme Court precedents.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)