The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaging in driving a B rocketing taxi.

On June 25, 2018, the Defendant driven the above taxi on June 25, 2018, and stopped for the signal atmosphere at the Dok-distance Intersection in front of the Djust Station in Busan City, but proceeded at a speed of about 40 km from the Dopo-dong to the Gupo-dong Myeonpo-dong.

At the time, there was a crosswalk where signal lights are installed, so there was a duty of care to see the front door to the person engaged in driving service and to drive safely according to the traffic signal.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected such duty of care and went beyond the above victim E (the age of 61) who was a victim E (the age of 61) who was standing a crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian signal from the left side of the direction of the Defendant’s vehicle to the right side, due to the negligence of leaving the vehicle stop signal while neglecting such duty of care.

As a result, the Defendant, by negligence in the above occupational negligence, inflicted injury on the victim, such as cutting the body of a closed body, which requires approximately 10 weeks medical treatment.

2. Determination

A. According to the proviso of Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the proviso of Article 4(1)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, in the case of operating a vehicle in violation of signals indicated by signal apparatus, a public prosecution may be instituted against the express will of the victim or against the insurance or mutual aid under Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. The term “in the case of operating a vehicle in violation of signals indicated by signal apparatus”

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do17117 Decided March 15, 2012). B.

We examine this case based on these legal principles as to whether the defendant's violation of signal was the direct cause of the traffic accident in this case.

The evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court is on the defendant vehicle.