The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a BDamcom.

On September 28, 2018, the Defendant driven the above vans around 20:20 on September 28, 2018, and led C ahead of the city at a speed that would not be known to the public health clinic from the D apartment room to the view of the public health clinic.

The driver has a duty of care to safely proceed to the designated place by traffic safety display only in the direction of the safety display.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and got the victim E (the age of 73) who was gleep on the rear side of the Defendant’s drive vehicle due to the negligence attributable to the reverse direction, and received the back of the vehicle.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury, such as the sofashion of Daejeon, which requires approximately 12 weeks of medical treatment, from the victim due to the above occupational negligence.

2. The gist of the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion is that the Defendant inevitably left one-half meters of one-way road in order to deduct the parked vehicle at the time of the accident, and thus, cannot be deemed to constitute a violation of the safety marking instruction under Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

3. Determination

(a) The operating of a motor vehicle by driving along a one-way road generally constitutes "driving a motor vehicle in violation of instructions given by safety signs with respect to prohibition of traffic or temporary suspension" under the proviso of Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents unless there are special circumstances;

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Do2562 delivered on November 9, 1993, etc.). B.

We examine whether the defendant's operation of one-way road behind a road constitutes "in the case of operating a vehicle in violation of the direction of safety signs indicating prohibition of traffic or temporary suspension" in Article 3 (1) and proviso of Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

The evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court is recognized.