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

1. The Defendant is a person who drives B rocketing and passenger cars.

On September 1, 2019, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 19:15, and led the front side of the C Apartment at the Incheon Metropolitan City, along the two-lanes.

In such cases, a person engaged in driving of a vehicle shall accurately operate the steering gear and brakes of the vehicle by making a well-round and right-hand side, and in particular, the accident location was at a point of 80 kilometers in the speed limit or at the time, and in such a case, a person engaged in driving a vehicle has a duty of care to operate the vehicle at a speed of 20/100 reduction of the maximum speed.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded beyond the limit speed (64km/h) and did not avoid the victim D (n, 94 years old) who dried a road on the left side from the right side of the running direction of the Defendant vehicle to the left side, and received it as the part front of the right side of the Defendant vehicle.

After all, the Defendant caused the death of the above victim due to the above occupational negligence due to the plecarcy damage, etc.

2. Determination

A. The driver of a motor vehicle in the relevant legal doctrine cannot be said to have a duty of care to anticipate and prepare for an occurrence of an exceptional situation which is difficult to expect and anticipate, by performing his/her duty of care to the extent that he/she could avoid the outcome in preparation for an ordinary predicted situation.

In order to recognize the Defendant’s crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, a proximate causal relationship between the Defendant’s occupational negligence and his/her occupational negligence and the victim’s death should be established. Such a fact constitutes the elements of a crime, and the burden of proof lies on the prosecutor.

B. Based on the above legal principle, the court’s duly adopted and examined evidence is recognized.