Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant has a duty of care to make sure that there is a pedestrian crossing the first lane, which is an exclusive lane for central buses, with a large traffic volume at a speed of five-lanes in the middle of the grounds for appeal, even though he/she is anticipated to have a pedestrian crossing the five-lane road without permission, and that he/she has a duty of care to prevent accidents by accurately manipulating the steering gear and brake system;
subsection (b) of this section.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person engaging in bus driving service No. 112.
On August 30, 2014, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 23:15, while driving the vehicle and driving the one lane of five lanes (lanes for central buses) in front of the F.M., at the ecological park of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, into the west-si bank. The Defendant neglected his duty of care to accurately operate the steering direction and brakes, and prevent the occurrence of the accident, while driving the vehicle without due care, due to the negligence of driving the vehicle at the vicinity of the central line, without due care to prevent the occurrence of the accident, and due to the negligence of driving the vehicle at the same time as G at the direction of the city south-si, while driving the vehicle at the right right end of the road at the speed near the center, the Defendant was unable to avoid the accident and caused the victim to die at the long-term 27 U.S., Dong-dong University on September 215, 2014.
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in full view of each of the evidence in its judgment.
(c)
The location of the accident in this case is not an expressway but an exclusive road for motor vehicles, and in light of the circumstance that the restaurant was on the road side, etc., the defendant, as alleged by the defendant, runs an exclusive lane for the central bus along the five-lane road as a bus driver.