The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaging in driving of Cyststa taxi with the string taxi engineer.

At around 11:05 on May 27, 2013, the Defendant operated the national highway No. 37 prior to the “Maria's house,” which was in the Maricheon-si Mancheon-gun, Yangyang-si, and continued to run the national highway from Yangyang-si to the Hancheon-si.

At this point, since it is a three-distance intersection where no signal is installed, a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle has a duty of care to see the front side and the right and the right and the right of the motor vehicle and to accurately operate the steering and steering system before entering the intersection.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was negligent in proceeding about 95 km in speed on the road above 60 km speed at the speed limit, and the part on the left side of the ES520 vehicle driven by the victim D (the age of 56) who affected the Hando by the Hando-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-Si

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim D, such as dystrophal typ, etc., which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment, and injury to the victim F, who is the passenger of the victimized vehicle, including 55 years of age, for approximately two weeks of medical treatment.

2. The public prosecutor instituted the instant public prosecution on the premise that the negligence of the defendant who driven more than 60 km speed 60 km per hour by speed exceeding 20 km per hour had proximate causal relation with the instant traffic accident. We examine whether such excessive speed by the defendant exists proximate causal relation with the instant traffic accident.

In order for the defendant to have a proximate causal relation between the above speed of the defendant's act and the traffic accident of this case, there must be circumstances such as finding the victim's right to enter bypass if the defendant had continued to maintain the speed limit, and then the victim could avoid collision (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do1854 delivered on September 22, 1998), and this Court has duly adopted it.