The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

The summary of the facts charged is the defendant who is engaged in driving a DK5 taxi.

On January 10, 2018, the Defendant driven the above taxi on January 10, 2018, and proceeded four lanes prior to the 4th parallel of the parallel of the 405 parallel line as Seoul Dongdaemun-gu, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, in the direction of the military direction of the direction of the direction of the sloping.

In this case, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents by accurately operating the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the motor vehicle and the steering gear of the operation of the operation of the motor vehicle, and by safely operating the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded without properly examining the existence of pedestrians in front of the crosswalk, and the Defendant changed the pedestrian signal from the left side of the road to the right side of the Defendant’s direction, but did not discover the victim E (69 years old) who did not cut the crosswalk, and received the victim from the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

After all, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence, such as external shock shock, brain fresh, throst, 2 thalle, 6 stalle, 6 stalle, 6 stalle, right-side stalle, stalle, electric stale, dale inculatory heat in telegraph, daleing, waste collection, weapons, between the right-side stale and electronic stale, and stalle, etc., which require approximately 16 weeks of treatment.

According to the facts charged in this case, the injury suffered by the victim falls under Article 4 (1) (2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and thus, the defendant's vehicle can be prosecuted even if the defendant's vehicle is covered by comprehensive insurance.

That is so.

Even if the defendant is the defendant, the proviso of Article 3 (2) of the same Act.