beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaged in driving C urban buses.
On January 16, 2016, the Defendant driven the above vehicle around 06:20 on January 16, 2016, and proceeded at a speed of about 60km at a speed of 50km depending on the bus center, which is one-lane flooding area from the waterside of the government of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
At the time, it is night, there is a house in the vicinity, and the passage of people is frequent, such as bus stops and crosswalks are installed. In such a case, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to reduce the speed of the person engaged in driving service, thoroughly operate the front, the front, the left, and the left, and to prevent accidents by accurately manipulating the steering direction, brakes and other devices.
Nevertheless, when the defendant neglected to do so at the same speed, he did not discover the victim E (n, 21 years of age) who was moving on the right side from the left side of the running direction of the defendant, but did not find the way to the right side, and shocked into the right side of the vehicle that the defendant drives.
After all, the Defendant caused the victim to die due to the above occupational negligence in the emergency room of the superior hospital in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, at around 06:50 on the same day.
2. As a driver of a board-board vehicle, it cannot be said that it is reasonable to believe that a pedestrian will not frighten the vehicle between the vehicles where the signal of the crosswalk is stopped in red, and that the driver should fulfill his/her duty of care by predicting the situation where the signal of the crosswalk is not cut off.
However, such a principle of trust shall be excluded in a case where there are special circumstances in which a person involved in traffic cannot be trusted to drive or walk on a motor vehicle in compliance with all road traffic-related laws and regulations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do4078, Jul. 29, 2010).