beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.03.24 2019노19

교통사고처리특례법위반(치사)

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In considering the surrounding circumstances of misunderstanding of facts, it was impossible to expect that there would be pedestrians who cross without permission in violation of signal.

The defendant was left left in accordance with the new rule, and the victim could not be found in advance who interfered with the view due to the front glass.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant was negligent on duty.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment without prison labor and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaging in driving bus B.

On July 2, 2018, at around 09:07, the Defendant driven the bus at the terminal station distance located in the New East-gu, Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, and continued to turn to the right from the c apartment site to the tent.

In this case, the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to reduce the speed to the driver of the vehicle, to properly manipulate the right and the right of the front and the right of the road, and to prevent the accident by accurately manipulating the steering and the operation of the steering system.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and found the victim D (D, n, 45 years old) who walked the crosswalk to the right side from the left side by the negligence of left-hand turn, and operated it to avoid this. However, the Defendant did not avoid it and did not go beyond the ground by receiving the victim from the front part of the bus in front of the above cross-country bus.

Ultimately, at around 14:31 on July 9, 2018, the Defendant caused the death of the victim due to the cerebral cerebral ma from the F Hospital located in Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul due to the above negligence.

B. The lower court determined that the instant accident was revealed at the time of the occurrence of the accident, and the location was ordinary, and that might hinder the view on the front door.