The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person engaged in driving CM7 automobiles.

On July 9, 2012, the Defendant driven the said car at around 20:45, and led the Defendant to drive the said car at a speed not later than two lanes depending on the two-lanes between the two-lanes in the area of “Flueg 11 Blue City,” in the area of “Flueg 11 Blue Do”.

A driver has a duty of care to prevent accidents due to maintaining an appropriate speed so that a person engaged in driving duty can closely examine the front right and the right and the right, and take countermeasures such as speed, temporary stop, evasion, etc. immediately in accordance with the appearance of obstacles and other conditions of traffic on the front.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to do so and passed it on the right side of the road from the left side of the moving direction to the right side of the victim D (the age of 65) who crosses the road to the right side.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as slots that require medical treatment for about 16 weeks, which eventually led to the victim's remaining disability of 37% of the final labor capacity loss rate, and caused the victim to become a imprisony or incurable disease by leaving the victim with disability of 37% of the final labor capacity loss rate.

2. Determination

A. A driver who operates a road shall not be held liable for breach of duty of care to the driver as long as he/she trusted that the other party traffic controller complies with all traffic regulations and operates the road on the basis of such trust. However, the principle of trust is excluded in special circumstances where the other party traffic controller cannot be trusted that the other party traffic controller will operate the vehicle or walk in compliance with all traffic regulations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Do79, Apr. 10, 1984; 2002Do4134, Oct. 11, 202).

I am on flick.