The defendant is innocent.

The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a vehicle B QM6.

On April 28, 2020, the Defendant driven the said car at a speed of about 28.8km from the E apartment room to the F elementary school at the speed of about 28.8km.

Since a crosswalk without signal lights is installed, and it is designated as a child protection zone, in such a case, there was a duty of care to check whether there is a child who is a driver of the vehicle and to safely drive the crosswalk by reducing the speed of the driver.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded without reducing the speed in front of the crosswalk and caused the Defendant to go beyond the road on the front part of the vehicle in front of the said vehicle by putting the victim G (I, 10 years old) who dried the road along the crosswalk to the right side of the Defendant’s direction from the left side of the road.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence, such as the outer side of the left-hand side and the bones of the internal side, which requires approximately eight weeks medical treatment.

2. Determination

A. The driver of a motor vehicle in the relevant legal doctrine cannot be said to have a duty of care to anticipate and prepare for an occurrence of an exceptional situation which is difficult to expect and anticipate, by performing his/her duty of care to the extent that he/she could avoid the outcome in preparation for an ordinary predicted situation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 85Do833, Jul. 9, 1985). In addition, the conviction in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

(b) related;