The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) falls under a motorcycle under the Road Traffic Act, and the defendant is obliged to confirm the driver's license of the person who intends to lend the ninitroke and prevent the person from driving the nitroke in the case of non-license, etc.

The defendant neglected his duty of care required for business solely on the fact that the defendant lent the part of the victim without a driver's license.

Furthermore, the Defendant did not notify the victim of the circumstances that the Defendant should take the balk from the balk to the end of the balk, and did not at all notify the victim's friendship of the operation method of the balk.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant did not have any negligence on the part of the defendant on the ground that the defendant did not have any negligence on the part of the defendant, since the defendant did not have any trouble at the time of lending

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor applied for permission to amend a bill of amendment to the contents as follows, and this court permitted this. Since the subject of the adjudication was changed, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

Before the amendment, the Defendant leased the bicycle, scooter, etc. with the trade name “D” in Sinsisi, the Defendant leased the victim E (the age of 14) from the aforementioned “D” around July 27, 2017.

In such cases, although the defendant has a duty of care to check in advance whether the scoo has broken down or operate the scoo because of his/her negligence, the increase in scoo cable is not normally operated by the scoo because of his/her negligence to lease the scoo cable to the victim, and the victim operates the scook while operating the scook, he/she received the scoo column installed in the park.