The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who is engaged in driving a passenger car with B low-priced typ.

On January 29, 2018, the Defendant driven the above car at around 11:13, 2018, and driven the road in front of the exit 108, 00 king-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, 108, at the 4-lane boundary of the Dong-dong market, at the speed of two lanes, which cannot be identified depending on the two-lanes of the two-lane.

In such a case, the driver had a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by driving the vehicle and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right are well checked.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and did not discover the victim C (58 ) who dried the crosswalk in violation of the signal by negligence that caused the failure of the front-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-on-hand-hand-hand-hand-on-hand-hand-hand-

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence from the victim’s blood, blood transfusion, and livering surgery No. 1 of the 1st century, alleys, and plant human consciousness.

2. Determination:

A. A driver of a motor vehicle of a related legal doctrine cannot be said to have a duty of care to anticipate and prepare for an occurrence of an exceptional situation that is sufficiently and unexpectedly difficult (Supreme Court Decision 85Do833 Decided July 9, 1985). B. According to the records of this case, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① The place where the instant accident occurred is a three-lane road, and the accident site is a place where a crosswalk, such as the immediate passing signal, is installed, and the Defendant immediately before the accident runs about about 72 km along the two-lane.