The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal was that the victim F had the intent to turn to the left at the time of the instant accident, and the Defendant, despite prior awareness of the movement of the said victim’s vehicle, led to the instant accident by proceeding beyond the limited speed, and thus, can be acknowledged respectively as a relation with the Defendant’s breach of duty of care and the person corresponding to the accident.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case, around 08:15 on August 13, 2016, the Defendant was driving a car in CSpo-type CSpo-type, and led the Defendant to proceed to Seoul from the direction of Chuncheon to the 46th line of the 2nd line (hereinafter referred to as “the 2nd line national highways of this case”) of the national highways No. 46 in front of the “E” restaurant in Gyeonggi-gu D (hereinafter referred to as “Eth 4nd line”).

Since the restriction speed is 80 km per hour on the national highway of the 2nd line, the driver had a duty of care to safely drive the person engaged in driving service by complying with the speed of the car line and the restriction speed and by checking well the right and the right and the right of the car line.

The Defendant neglected this and led to the Defendant’s negligence of driving at a speed exceeding 48 km per hour, which led to the Defendant’s failure to turn to Chuncheon from the front side of the Defendant’s passenger car to the left from the Ethm.

Defendant 1 caused the injury to the victim F, such as the left-hand pelle pelle, which requires approximately eight weeks of treatment by occupational negligence as above, to the victim F, and to the victim H, who is a passenger of the rocketing passenger car, the victim H, about three weeks of treatment, such as the damage of the boom and power lines, and to the victim I suffered from the injury of the chill pele, etc. requiring approximately two weeks of treatment by the victim I.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant violated the duty of care on the sole basis of evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

It is difficult to recognize the defendant, and the defendant's excessive speed is in violation of the speed limit.