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

1. Around February 22 and 10, 2012, the Defendant: (a) driven a Ctoscar car on duty; and (b) proceeded two-lanes in front of the Ctoscar-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-

In this case, the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to reduce the speed in advance and to thoroughly operate the steering direction and operation system in order to ensure safe operation by accurately manipulating the steering direction and operation system.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded with the victim D (the age of 29) who crosses the road to the right side from the left side of the running direction of the said car by negligence, which led the victim D (the age of 29) who crosses the road to the right side.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim’s death by occupational negligence, around 05:19 on February 9, 2012, the Defendant caused the victim’s death by dubing two dubs in the E Hospital in Gyeongnam-si.

2. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in the judgment of the court.

At this time, the evidence of probative value should lead to the judge's conviction that the facts charged are true, as long as it is impossible to make a reasonable doubt based on evidence, and there is no sufficient doubt that there is suspicion of crime.

Unless such proof is given, the court shall judge the defendant's interest as the interest and decide not guilty of the facts charged.

(See Supreme Court Decision 87Do2168, Dec. 22, 1987, etc.). A driver of a motor vehicle is obliged to perform his/her duty of care to the extent that he/she is able to avoid the outcome in preparation for an occurrence of an ordinary predicted situation, and to prepare against the occurrence of an ethical event, which is sufficiently satisfied and difficult to expect.