The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant, including the victim, called “the bus passengers including the victim at the time of the instant appeal, open the bus front door by operating the opening and closing system, and shut down the bus front door by manipulating the opening and closing system. In that process, only the part of the victim, etc., who was on the front side of the entrance in the process, was faced with even the door.

As such, the Defendant did not neglect his duty to protect passengers at the time of safe driving and getting on or off a bus, it does not constitute “driving by means of dangerous or obstruction to others” under Articles 156 subparag. 1 and 48(1) of the Road Traffic Act.

2. In light of the purpose of the Road Traffic Act, Article 48 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 156 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, which provides for the driver's duty to safely drive the vehicle, and the legislative purport thereof, the crime of violating Article 48 of the Road Traffic Act is established when the driver does not accurately operate the steering system, steering system or other devices of the vehicle, or does not follow the traffic conditions or the structure or performance of the vehicle, thereby causing danger and injury to others. Thus, it is interpreted that the specific speed and method of driving can be deemed as a high-risk driving act in light of the situation at the time of the vehicle traffic situation and various devices, structures, and performance of the vehicle, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do709, Nov. 25, 2010).