The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was at fault, at the point of the instant accident, at a speed exceeding 60 km per hour, 92 km per hour.

In addition, the point of accident in this case does not have a central line as an intersection, and the vehicle is scheduled to pass along the vehicle. ② A vehicle operated in the opposite lane was already left to the left unlawfully before the vehicle entered the lane in violation of the signal and the preceding vehicle was already left to the left unlawfully. ③ The defendant, even though he appeared to the witness, does not put the vehicle behind the opposite lane at a speed without reducing the speed. As such, the above trust of the defendant does not constitute trust protected by the "Principle of Trust".

Therefore, since the defendant violated the speed limit and neglected the duty of Jeonju, the victim suffered the injury due to negligence, occupational negligence and causation is recognized.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person who drives B rocketing taxi, and C is a person who drives D rocketing-lurged vehicle.

On March 31, 2012, around 23:10, the Defendant proceeded at a speed of about 92 km from the Yak Stak Stak Island to the front side of the Home PY Stak Island, located on the side of the Busan Maritime Daegu Maritime Transport Daegu Maritime Sea, at a speed of about 92 km per hour.

Since there is an intersection where signal lights are installed and the speed limit is 60 km speed, a person engaged in driving business has a duty of care to prevent accidents by complying with the speed limit and operating the steering and steering system accurately.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and putting the restricted speed more than 32 km and violated the signal in the opposite direction and left turn to the left.