The defendant is innocent.

1. The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a B-ro car.

around 14:50 on January 2, 2018, the Defendant driven the said car along the two-lanes between the Do road and the Do road from the Do road to the city interest.

At least 70km/h of the road, delivery has been installed on the right side of the opposite direction of the defendant, and the pedestrian frequent traffic has been scheduled. On the right side of the road, the child who has been under 8 years of age, who has completed the crossing of the road, was placed a drick, and the victim C (8 years of age) who was under red clothes with the upper left side of the road, was driving the road in a situation where the victim C (8 years of age) who was under the upper side of the road crosss the road two lanes to cross the road through one lane. In such a case, the driver of the motor vehicle was obliged to pay a duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle, such as reducing the speed of the horn to avoid collision with the pedestrian who started the crossing without permission or giving attention to the pedestrian.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not thoroughly conduct an all-round vision at a speed of about 82km/h and at a speed of exceeding 12km/h, and did not discover the above victim through occupational negligence, thereby receiving the victim from the front part of the abovero body car as is, and let the victim go beyond the floor, and caused the victim to go beyond the floor at around 21:36 of the same day, which resulted in the death of low-carbon cerebral cerebrs and training finishings due to low blood shock and heart suspension at the D Hospital.

2. The judgment prosecutor instituted the instant prosecution on the premise that the Defendant found the victim who sought to cross the road due to the violation of speed limit and neglect of duty of care at the front time, and that the victim died due to negligence of failing to make a timely operation.

However, the trial process of this case.