The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, while driving along one-lanes of two lanes, operated the direction direction, etc. in advance, checked the progress of the vehicle at front and rear left, and changed the course into two-lanes. The instant accident occurred due to the negligence of E, and thus, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts

2. Determination

A. On October 18, 2012, at around 08:20 on October 18, 2012, the Defendant: (a) driven a D public bus owned by C; and (b) changed the course to two-lanes while driving the D public bus from the friendly apartment company to agricultural cooperative at the entrance of the Matropo, one way among the two-lanes.

Although a person who drives a motor vehicle has a duty of care to drive the motor vehicle in advance in order not to obstruct other motor vehicles by operating the direction direction, etc. or by properly examining the progress of the motor vehicle at front and rear left, the defendant neglected this duty and negligently changed the course to the two-lanes, and thereby, the defendant 49ciopia, which is proceeding in the rear side of the bus driving in the same direction as that of the motor vehicle bus driving in the front side of the bus driving in the same direction, suffered the left-hand frame requiring five weeks medical treatment for the above E.

As above, the Defendant driven the bus in violation of the duty of care to change the course.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented in its judgment.

C. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the records of the trial court’s determination, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged in this case that the defendant breached his duty of care in career change. Therefore, the judgment below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in matters

(1) There is no evidence to find that the defendant who has driven a bus did not operate the direction direction, etc. at the time of changing the lane.

E is the court of the court below.