[교통사고처리특례법위반][공1991.7.15.(900),1839]
The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant, without examining whether the defendant could have discovered in advance the victim who had been employed in the front line of the operation, if he had been employed in his course at a considerable distance from the vehicle coming from the front line of the operation with the vehicle coming from the front line of the operation, in the case where the defendant died of the victim by using the headlight in the opposite part of the city national highway in which the vehicle traffic had been added on the Korean national highway at night while driving the taxi on the Korean national highway, and immediately after passing with the vehicle.
The case reversing the judgment of the court below that the defendant violated the rules of evidence on the ground that the judgment below erred in the violation of the rules of evidence on the ground that the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence on the ground that it did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence on the ground that, in the case where the defendant was dead because the defendant was unable to find the victim who was under way in three meters after the defendant's headlight was not adjusted downward, while driving a taxi on the straight line with the cargo vehicle that had no obstruction in the field of the national highway, which was 8 meters wide in the starting width of the city road which was packed by the 1st line with the Han River, even if the defendant could have discovered the victim who was under way in the front line with the vehicle coming from the front line, and did not have any error in finding the victim in advance even though the defendant fulfilled his duty of care in the operation normally required, such as whether it was possible to find the victim in advance.
Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents
Defendant
Prosecutor
Attorney Or-do et al.
Daegu District Court Decision 90No809 delivered on August 24, 1990
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daegu District Court Panel Division.
We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the point of accident in this case is the package map of the first line of eight meters wide from Kimcheon-si to the Gyeongcheon-si, and it was difficult for the defendant to find out the victim of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at about 50 kilometers per hour while driving a taxi at around 00:20 on March 5, 1990, while driving the taxi at about 3 meters long from the opposite direction, it was difficult for the defendant to find the victim of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, and it was difficult for the defendant to find the victim of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the speed of about 8 meters long, and there was no other special circumstance to see that the defendant was at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, and there was no other special circumstance to see that the victim was at the time of the accident at the time of the accident.
2. However, even if the defendant did not have the duty of care to drive the national highway of the city with limited time at the time of the expiration of self-government, in response to the expectation that the person would be able to enjoy while driving the national highway, such as the time of original adjudication, if the defendant could have discovered the victim who would have been able to enjoy on the road in advance at a reasonable distance if he had fulfilled the duty of care for driving normally required by the driver, and could have avoided it, it cannot be said that the defendant was not negligent in performing his duties.
According to the evidence protocol prepared by the judicial police assistant and each protocol of examination of the accused prepared by the judicial police assistant, the accident location of this case is limited to five minutes each at low level, and the vehicle of the upper and lower-speed line is very high to the extent that it does not have any visual disability even at the time of this case, and at the time of this case, it is recognized that the defendant was negligent in attending the course of the vehicle with the vehicle facing the police and the prosecutor's office by adjusting the head of the vehicle of the defendant taxi toward the head of the road and properly examining the course of the vehicle. In light of these facts, even if the defendant did not expect that the person would be in advance going on the road, the defendant could not be exempted from liability for negligence if he was found in advance at a considerable distance of distance from the victim who had been in progress, if he had done the course by adjusting the head of the vehicle on the road.
In light of the above, the court below should have deliberated whether or not the victim could not be discovered even though the defendant performed his duty of care normally required in driving, but should have tried to do so. However, the court below's decision as above without the name was made as soon as possible, and it is reasonable to discuss this issue as to the violation of the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)