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

1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving Dunst motor vehicles.

On December 21, 2010, the Defendant driven the above car on December 21, 2010, and driven the two-lanes by the Han Flus apartment 104 Dong-dong, Daejeon Daejeon, with the two-lanes by the Han Flusor apartment 104 Dong-dong from the fourth side of the Goyang Park, the Defendant driven the two-lanes along the fourth side of the Pacific 4.

At the time, there is a night and a place where the center line of the yellow-ray is installed, so there was a duty of care to ensure that drivers are engaged in driving service thoroughly and safely operate the car line.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded with the center line, and the victim E (hereinafter, 40 years old) who was normally driven by using a single lane at the center line, received the part on the left-hand side of the FMMMM car driven by the Defendant as the top-hand part of the above MMM car.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by negligence in the above occupational negligence, sustained injury to the victim, such as salt, tension, etc. of the bones, which requires medical treatment for about two weeks, and, at the same time, escaped without any necessary measures, such as stopping and providing relief to the victim, so that repair costs equivalent to KRW 2,843,832, would be avoided.

2. The Defendant asserted that, under the influence of alcohol, a substitute driver drivens the Defendant’s vehicle, and is not guilty on the ground that he did not drive the vehicle.

The witness G and H, the witness witness witness witness of the instant accident, was proceeding about 40 km in speed prior to the occurrence of the accident, and the Defendant’s vehicle was also moving behind the Defendant’s vehicle on a tent. However, the Defendant’s vehicle, prior to the accident, went beyond the central line while the Defendant’s vehicle was faced with the Defendant’s vehicle, and even after G turned down to the warning sign, the vehicle turned over to the central line. However, even if G turned down by the warning sign, the vehicle of the Defendant caused an accident while going beyond the central line.