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

1. The Defendant is a person engaging in driving Cump truck trucks.

On April 26, 2017, the Defendant came to proceed with a road of one lane in the middle of the 7th century from the gamburon to the gamburon of the Do-Eup, the Do-do Do-ro, the Do-ro, the Do-ro, the Do-ro, the Do-ro, the Do-ro

There is a place where the center line of a bend line with a large channel, and there was a duty of care to safely drive the vehicle to the person engaged in driving service.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and got the front wheel part of the EYF-R1 two-wheeled vehicle driven by the victim D (21) who had been frighted due to the negligent operation of the central line in order to drive a bend by the honds.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered from the injury to the upper part of the body of the body, which requires approximately 12 weeks of medical treatment, due to the above occupational negligence.

2. The facts charged of this case are based on the premise that the defendant invadedd the central line and caused the accident of this case by negligence. Thus, we examine whether the defendant was negligent and the relation with the person.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant can be found to have driven the cargo vehicle at the port of the accident in this case so that the left quith of the cargo vehicle is driven along the median line.

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s act of invasion on the central line, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① The point at which the instant accident occurred shall be within the speed of 60km by the direction of the direction.