교통사고처리특례법위반(치사)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. At the time of the summary of the grounds for appeal (defluence of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles), the Defendant could avoid the instant accident if he had given a proper consideration to the front.
The Defendant, immediately before the instant accident, did not perform his/her ordinary duty of care required for the driver by making an implied example with the bus driver operated in the opposite part.
The judgment of the court below that excessively expanded and applied the principle of trust is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.
2. In light of all the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the judgment of the court below and the trial court, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case on the ground that "no special circumstance exists to exclude the principle of trust as stated in the precedents at the time of the accident" is just, and the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.
If the basis is added or supplemented, the following:
According to the second traffic accident analysis document, the distance from the point where the defendant can find a part of the victim's body at the time until the bus stops completely, i.e. 9.3 meters.
On the other hand, the defendant was prior to the collision, while the defendant was able to see the number of motor vehicles.
In 109 pages of evidence records, the video accused was very short of the distance between the location of the lodging and the point of collision.
In light of this, it seems that the defendant could not be able to secure sufficient suspension distance even if he found the victim or operated the bus operation system without being aware of the above.
Ultimately, a proximate causal relationship cannot be acknowledged between the Defendant’s locked act and the occurrence of the instant accident.
In light of the developments leading up to the instant accident, road situation, etc. at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the Defendant was extremely short of time to know about the road situation, the fact that the Defendant immediately sent the front door, and the general bus drivers’ operational habits and work behavior, etc.