The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: First, the Defendant did not neglect his duty of care as a bicycle rider at the time of overtaking the victim’s bicycle; and the victim is merely a part of the victim’s getting ahead of his/her license

Second, even if the defendant's breach of duty is recognized, it is difficult to see that the victim's flut was damaged by the accident of this case.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. To overtake a bicycle prior to the Defendant’s breach of the duty of care, a person has the duty of care to overtake the bicycle at a safe speed and method depending on the speed and course of the preceding bicycle and other road conditions.

The victim's statement in the investigative agency and court about the accident of this case is not consistent with the contents of the statement, and it is difficult to believe that there is a lack of rationality.

However, even if the victim's statement is excluded, the following circumstances are acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the defendant's statement at investigation agency and court. In other words, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant was forced to make a right-hand turn to the right-hand access road at the left-hand side while driving on the Han River, and the victim who operated the bicycle ahead of the Defendant attempted to make a right-hand turn by overtaking the victim at a rapid speed, even though the victim was at almost at a different point at the entrance of the said right-hand access road, and ② the victim was not expected to have been overtaken by the Defendant, and the Defendant could not expect such overtaking by the Defendant to do so.