The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person engaged in driving Cmera trucks.

On November 13, 2016, around 11:00, the Defendant proceeded at a d-lane of the road in front of Asan City with one-lane of the D in front of the city of Asan, with a eromatic slope, at an insular speed.

At this point, there was a center line of yellow solid lines, so in such a case, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by driving safely, such as seeing the front door and accurately manipulating the steering system, etc. for those engaged in driving business.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by failure to properly operate the steering and steering devices, dumped the center line, and dumped on the left side of the Defendant’s driving vehicle into the left side of the Defendant’s driving vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”). Ultimately, the Defendant, by negligence in the course of business as seen above, sustained serious injury to the victim, such as the dump of the bones of fingers and bones, which requires approximately 12 weeks of treatment.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendant alleged that the instant accident occurred, the Defendant did not intrude the central line at the time of the instant accident.

2) Opinions of innocence as a result of the jury verdict: The evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the victim E’s legal statement, can only be proved to the extent that the Defendant was guilty of the central line at the time the instant accident occurred, beyond reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see it.

B. In a case where a public prosecution is instituted by applying Article 3(1) and proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act as a result of a trial, if a public prosecution cannot be instituted on the grounds of the main text of Article 3(2) or the main text of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents unless there is any ground provided for in the proviso of Article 3(2) of the same Act as a result of the