The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of violating the Road Traffic Act is acquitted.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case, around September 23:30, 2012, the Defendant driven a C low-speed car and proceeded along one-lane from the distance of the Gu Hospital to the distance of the school, depending on the bankruptcy of seven-lanes in the 62-9-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul.

At the time, there was a night and there was a place where the left turn and the left turn can only be left-hand, and there was a place where the driver of the vehicle could not go straight, so there was a duty of care to prevent the accident by properly operating the steering system and brakes of the vehicle in order to ensure the distance between the front vehicle and the right and the right and the right and the right of the vehicle in order to change the lane, and to drive the vehicle safely by accurately operating the steering system and brakes of the vehicle in order to ensure the traffic situation.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and neglected his duty to care in the front direction, and neglected the two-lanes in order to change the course from the first direction to the second two-lane, and was driven by the victim D (ma, 5 years old) who was in the signal atmosphere at the front direction at the first direction, and was driven by the back part of the back part of the Estststuna taxi driving by the Defendant, the left front part of the said high-speed taxi driving by the Defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by the above occupational negligence, suffered from the victim D’s sastum save in need of treatment for about two weeks, and at the same time, did not stop immediately to rescue the victim while destroying the back sastyer, etc. of the said rocketing taxi to move into KRW 435,398 at the market price, and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as aiding the victim.

2. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in full view of the evidence in its judgment.

3. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts: (a) there was no trace of damage on the vehicle under Defendant driving, and (2) the victim asserts that the part concerning the right back part of the taxi that he driven (hereinafter “instant taxi”) was damaged. However, the back part of the instant taxi is broken.