The defendant shall be innocent.

The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a vehicle B with B in the instant facts charged.

On March 30, 2017, the Defendant driven the said car at a speed of about 90km per hour according to one lane from the breadth of the ridge, which is located in the 20-lane Aglsan City, Aglsan City, Aglsan City, to the two-lane way in front of the ridge, to the flive surface of gender, and proceeded at the speed of about 90km according to one lane.

At the time, it is night and where the passage of other vehicles is frequent, so in such cases, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely drive the steering gear and brake system by accurately manipulating the steering gear and brake system according to the situation.

Nevertheless, due to the negligence of neglecting this, the Defendant found the victim D (the male and 50 years old) who was going beyond the road while driving a C motorcycle at the front of the course of drinking in a drinking condition while driving the C motorcycle at the influence of alcohol, and did not avoid it, and did not go against it, and took the front wheel part of the said car with the victim's body.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim's death by the occupational negligence above, immediately, due to the low blood shock shock, etc. caused by the diversating and diversification in the workplace.

Maz.

1. In preparation for an ordinary predicted situation, the driver of a motor vehicle cannot be said to have a duty of care to anticipate and prepare for an occurrence of an ethical situation that is sufficiently satisfied and unexpected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Do833, Jul. 9, 1985). Examining the following circumstances revealed by the record in light of the above legal principles, the driver of a motor vehicle shall perform his/her duty of care to the extent that he/she could avoid the outcome thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Do833, Jul. 9, 1985).