The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, although the victim did not put the matter into the bus front stairs and the defendant could not be aware of such circumstances.

2. Determination

(a) "Cases of operating a vehicle in violation of the duty to prevent the falling of passengers under Article 39 (2) of the Road Traffic Act" in Article 3 (2) 10 of the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents means the cases of operating a vehicle in violation of "the obligation to take necessary measures, such as opening the door accurately so that persons aboard or getting on and off the vehicle may not fall off";

B. According to the evidence, such as back to the instant case, health stand, the “CCTV video CD” of the instant bus and the victim’s partial statement, etc., ① the victim was able to close down the bus front door of the bus that the victim tried to leave the door, ② the victim’s left engine was reduced out of the bus, ② the victim’s left engine was left behind the bus immediately after the shock. Meanwhile, the bus immediately after the shock was closed in the front door. ③ The victim’s shock and smoke fell beyond the center of body due to the start of the bus and suffered the injury. ④ Although the victim tried to board the bus in order without confirming it properly, the Defendant was able to close the front door without checking it, and the Defendant was found to have failed to take necessary measures to close the bus in order to prevent any other person from becoming aware of it. Furthermore, even if the Defendant did not completely close the bus in the front door.