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

1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a motor vehicle with sod vehicle C.

On January 3, 2016, around 20:59, the Defendant driven the said car on the front of the E cafeteria located in the Sejong-si, Sejong-si, and driven the said car at a speed of about 70km per hour according to the speed of about 70km of speed, along the Daejeon-do road, from the tent to the Daejeon-si.

At the time, it was difficult at night, and there was a three-distance road where access roads are installed to the right side of the defendant's moving direction, so a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to safely operate by accurately manipulating the steering side and the steering gear.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not find out the victim F (59) who crosses the road without permission from the right side of the horse due to the negligence of the defendant's failure to do so and did not discover the victim F (59) who crosss the road without permission from the right side of the horse and received the victim's body parts from the front driver and front glass part of the victim's vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victims to die at the site of the heart due to the foregoing occupational negligence, which was caused by the cage of a cage cage.

2. Determination

A. A driver who operates a road shall not be held liable for a driver’s breach of duty of care in the course of performing his/her duty of care, unless he/she has trusted that the driver is obliged to comply with all traffic laws and regulations and operated based on such trust.

However, such a principle of trust is excluded in a case where there are special circumstances in which the other party involved in the traffic cannot be trusted to drive or walk on a motor vehicle in compliance with all road traffic-related laws and regulations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do4134, Oct. 11, 2002; 2010Do4078, Jul. 29, 2010). (b) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the defendant who was operating within a limited speed.