The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the above judgment is publicly notified.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) although evidence of the facts charged in the instant case is not sufficient, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

A. The intersection where the accident of this case, which had no occupational negligence, was merely an on-and-off signal and did not support by traffic control by signal, etc.

However, since the defendant first entered the intersection than D and the width of the road by the defendant was wider than that of the road through which D, the defendant has priority in passing through the above intersection than D in accordance with the relevant laws, such as the Road Traffic Act.

Therefore, the occurrence of the accident in this case is only D's occupational negligence which did not enter the intersection by taking into account the left and right after having set a vehicle first, and there was no defendant's occupational negligence.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the degree of shock at the time of the instant accident, the degree of the injury of the victim, the parts and degree of the damage of the vehicle, the degree of shaking of images taken from the D’s bus at the time of the accident, D’s speech and behavior immediately after the accident, D’s normal bus driving immediately after the occurrence of the accident, and only received diagnosis and did not receive any specific treatment, the victim has damaged the completeness of the D’s body and has been hindered or has changed its health condition to a poor condition.

It is difficult to see that the accident of this case sustained D injury due to this accident.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(c)

The accident of this case where the intention of escape and the necessity of relief measures was insignificant, the defendant confirmed D's condition and bus condition immediately after the occurrence of the accident, and the defendant did not appeal D's injury, the defendant requested F to handle the accident to the towing engineer F who immediately arrived at the accident, and the vehicle was not entirely away at the accident site, and the defendant did not know D's identity to D.