beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.09.29 2016노1056

교통사고처리특례법위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) the time and place of the occurrence of the instant case, the form of the victim at the time of the instant case, etc. were considered, it could not be predicted that the Defendant would have any person crossing without permission at the time of the instant case; and (b) there was no possibility of expectation to discover and avoid the victim; and (c) the Defendant was not negligent in the occurrence of the instant accident; and (d)

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court erred by neglecting the Defendant’s duty of care in front of the accident.

In view of the facts charged of this case, the lower court convicted the Defendant.

1) The location of the instant accident is a general road of two lanes where an apartment is located in the opposite part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s running direction, and it is difficult to view the instant accident as a place in which it is difficult to expect unauthorized crossing due to the crosswalk immediately adjacent to the instant accident place.

2) Since the place where the instant accident occurred is a straight line, there was no obstacle that could not be discovered (as the Defendant’s assertion, the location of the instant accident is the place leading immediately after the opening of the gate, and if it was difficult to keep the surrounding area at the time of the instant accident, the Defendant should have faithfully complied with the obligation to take full look ahead). 3) The instant accident occurred in the two-lanes of the Defendant’s vehicle driving direction while the victim was crossing without permission over the center line on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle driving direction, and the victim was shocked with the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle. In light of the background of the foregoing accident and the parts of the Defendant’s vehicle shocked with the victim.