The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is D that the Defendant is a person engaging in the TPP taxi driving service.

On August 26, 2016, at around 21:55, the Defendant moved back front of the white apartment, which was monthly in the Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Mapo-dong, Mapo-dong, to the white apartment bank that operated the said taxi on the high side of dry field at night.

At the time, it was difficult to view at night, and there was an urgent slope, so the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents by accurately manipulating the steering gear and brakes of the motor vehicle according to the traffic situation through thorough operation of the steering gear and brakes of the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and found the victim E (62) who was in the front line on the road on the front line, but did not avoid this, and did not go against the victim's body at the front line of the driver's seat of the above taxi.

Ultimately, at around August 26, 2016, the Defendant caused the victim’s death by occupational negligence due to the multiple growth caused by the blood plessis and blood transfusion at F Hospital around 22:34, 2016.

2. Determination

(a) A driver of a motor vehicle is satisfied by performing his/her duty of care to the extent that he/she could avoid the result in preparation for any unexpected situation, and has a duty of care to prepare for such occurrence by predicting the occurrence of an exceptional situation that is ordinarily unpredictable;

b. We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles. (See Supreme Court Decision 85Do833 delivered on July 9, 1985, etc.).

In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the defendant has a duty of care to drive the defendant with a duty of care to expect that he/she will enjoy people at the center of the road.

It is difficult to view the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, and if the defendant had taken the front view properly, the accident described in the facts charged (hereinafter “the instant case”).