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

1. The Defendant is a person engaging in driving vehicles B in the facts charged.

On June 27, 2018, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 14:42, while proceeding from E to F, the intersection of the street in front of the D cafeteria, which is located in the south old-gun C.

However, there is a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by accurately manipulating the front section and the left and right of the driver of the vehicle, as it is a private intersection that does not support the traffic control, so the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and caused the victim to go beyond the floor by taking HOba in the case of the victim G (n, 66 years old) driving from the right side of the running direction due to negligence.

Ultimately, on July 2, 2018, the Defendant caused the death of the victim by pressure on brain at a pre-university hospital located in Gwangju-ro 42, Dong-gu, Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-ro around 10:19 due to such occupational negligence.

2. According to the result of the examination of evidence, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the intersection of the accident site of this case was an intersection where signal, etc. is not installed; and (b) the Defendant came to the intersection after sufficiently going to the intersection; and (c) the Defendant far far far far far far more than the intermediate point of the intersection; and (d) at the end of the intersection of almost nearly nearly nearly, the victim’s error above the front line of the Defendant’s right side.

Therefore, the above traffic accident appears to have been caused by the victim's unilateral negligence, and only the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone violates the defendant's duty of care to prevent the accident in advance by accurately manipulating the front door and the left door and the left door and the left door and the steering gear.

It is insufficient to view it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a time when there is no proof of crime, and thus, the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act is followed.