The defendant is not guilty. The summary of this judgment shall be announced publicly.

1. On January 21, 2015, the Defendant driving a vehicle with Cpoter vehicle with a duty of care to verify the career safety, while neglecting the duty of care to ensure the safety of the vehicle in the front section of the vehicle, and attempted to stop immediately and take necessary measures, such as removing obstacles to traffic flow, at the 61st direction of Pyeongtaek-si Do 42-31, from the 61st direction to the 1st direction. In such a case, a person engaging in driving service failed to take necessary measures, without any justifiable reason, even though he/she failed to take necessary measures, such as removing obstacles to traffic flow.

2. Determination:

A. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10096 Decided June 25, 2009, etc.). B.

In light of the above legal principles, as stated in the facts charged in this case, evidence and circumstances that the defendant could be deemed to have shocked the utility pole by driving C (hereinafter “the vehicle of this case”) as stated in the facts charged of this case, the investigation report containing the process of shocking the utility pole (as to the video screen of the vehicle of this case), the investigation report containing the process of shocking the telecommunica vehicle of this case, the fact investigation report investigating the shocked condition of the vehicle of this case in the utility pole and the report on occurrence of traffic accidents, and an investigation report stating the contents of the report (in attachment of 112 report processing slip).