beta
Text
The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaged in driving of a vehicle with D-wing and printing off.
On April 23, 2014, the defendant driving the above vehicle around 18:40 on April 23, 2014, and driving a one-lane road in front of the Frant E in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, Incheon, in the direction of across the border from the parallel distance prevention.
Since a place is designated as a children protection area, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has the duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by safely driving the motor vehicle, such as reducing the speed and checking the right and the right and the right of the motor vehicle.
Nevertheless, the defendant did not discover the victim G (Nam, 8 years old) who crosses the road to the right side from the left side of the motor vehicle of marinad defendant due to the negligence of neglecting this, and did not discover the victim G (Nam, 8 years old) and met with the left side of the above motor vehicle and the rear wheels part.
As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence, i.e., the left-hand le executive officer who requires medical treatment for 12 weeks.
2. We examine whether the Defendant caused the instant traffic accident in violation of the duty of care in the child protection zone (the Defendant does not recognize that the location of the instant traffic accident was a child protection zone, but does not deny the fact that the instant traffic accident occurred by the Defendant’s vehicle). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined in the instant case, the Defendant was found to have proceeded with the first lane of the instant vehicle by driving a sealed string vehicle, and the Defendant was driving the said vehicle on the left side of the Defendant’s driving direction; ② the victim was up to the right side from the opposite line to the left side of the Defendant’s driving direction; ③ the vehicle was parked in the opposite line at the time; ③ the vehicle was parked in the opposite line; and the victim was on the opposite line.