The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person driving a CMFSA car.

On January 17, 2013, the Defendant driven the above car at around 18:10, and moved the above road to the 13 complex surface from the luminous intersection to the 13 complex surface.

Since signal lights are installed at the front of that place, the person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to check whether there is a person who gets on the front side and the right side in order to prevent accidents in advance by reducing speed, and to check whether there is a person who gets on the front side and the right side and to drive safely according to the new code.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected the above duty of care and neglected to find out the victim D (71 years of age, female) who was walking when the crosswalk signal, etc. is green, and had it go beyond the road by shocking the right side of the said car.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury, such as the soft-time therapy, to the victim due to the above occupational negligence.

2. There is a witness D, E’s investigative agency and legal statement that correspond to the above charged facts in the judgment, but there is no credibility in each of the above statements for the following reasons (it is difficult to believe that the witness E appeared to witness the traffic accident of this case even if he appeared to witness the traffic accident of this case), and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor cannot be said to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant violated the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk.

① The circumstances before and after the instant accident, in particular, the existence of a witness witness, and whether a witness was engaged in rescue activities, etc., are not consistent and are inconsistent with the witness E’s legal statement.

(2) A witness E has made a statement at the police that “the driver of a sea-going vehicle fails to view the driver”.