(Bodily Injury)

The summary of this decision shall be published.

On December 26, 2020, the Defendant was a person who is engaged in driving a Bknife car, and was driving a side-road in front of Daejeon Sung-gu C on December 14, 2020 from D to X-po4 apartment complex.

At the same time, motor vehicles were parked on both sides of the road, and thus, the driver of the motor vehicle had a duty of care to stop the accident by driving the motor vehicle on the front side and right side, and by driving the motor vehicle differently from the safety of children.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to do so and did not see the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the victim E (Nam, 7 years old) who was set up in the left-hand side of the defendant's running direction was shocked into the top-hand side of the above car.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury, such as an injury to the victim by his/her occupational negligence, which did not go to the left-hand side in need of medical treatment for about 10 weeks.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

Defendant could not have predicted that the victim, who had different news reports, had changed his own direction to protruding the road. Even if the Defendant was aware of the victim and immediately stopped, the Defendant did not have to prevent the instant accident. Therefore, there was no negligence in the course of business on the part of the Defendant.

B. Details of statutory duty of care

Article 5-13 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that a driver of a motor vehicle commits a crime against a child in a child protection zone under Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in order to protect a child from the danger of traffic accidents, the aggravated provision provides that a person who commits a crime shall be punished, "the duty to observe the speed limit (30 km a speed) in a child protection zone under Article 12 (3) of the Road Traffic Act" and "the duty to operate in consideration of the safety of

C. Specific determination

1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① The road in which the instant accident occurred is a child protection zone, and both vehicles parked along with each other. On the basis of the driving direction of the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), a sidewalk separated from the road was installed separately on the left side.

② During the instant vehicle’s play with other children, the victim changed the direction rapidly to the same direction as that of the instant vehicle, and had been protruding to the instant vehicle through a space between parked vehicles. Since then, the victim conflicts to the left side of the said vehicle in the opposite direction with the instant vehicle.

③ According to CCTV images taken in the situation of the instant accident and the instant vehicle black images, the time spent from the time the victim entering the road appears on each of the above images until the point of collision with the instant vehicle is about 0.5 to 0.6 seconds.

2) The above facts and circumstances revealed through the records of this case, i.e., (i) there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant driven at a rapid speed in violation of the speed limit in the children protection zone at the time of the accident, or otherwise violated traffic regulations; (ii) even if the Defendant was placed on a road at a rapid short time between parked vehicles, it seems difficult for the victim to avoid this accident even if the Defendant was placed on the front and right-hand side, and (iii) particularly, the “official hours” during the driving of the vehicle is ordinarily deemed 0.7-1 seconds from the time when the driver was discovered the danger situation of the front and the brack starts with the moving, and the actual operation of the vehicle started. As seen earlier, the time of the collision from the time when the Defendant could have known the victim; (iii) even if the Defendant had taken the operation of the vehicle within the shortest time after the recognition of the victim, it would be difficult to recognize that the Defendant violated the duty of due care in the vehicle’s operation in question, such as the vehicle’s safety.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by publicly announcing the summary of this judgment pursuant to Article 58

Judges Kim Jong-soo

Judges Senior Superintendent;

1) The first time during which part of the form of the victim was revealed on the road: approximately 3.867 seconds

2) The time when the Defendant’s vehicle appears to have shocked the victim: approximately 4.402 seconds

(iii) Required time: approximately 0.535 seconds

② Standard for the recycling time of the “F” file attached to No. 9 CDs (B film image)

(i) The first time disclosed between parked vehicles: approximately 16.149 seconds;

2) The time when the instant vehicle appears to show that the instant vehicle shocked the victim and shaking the victim: approximately 16.817 seconds

(iii) Required time: approximately 0.68 seconds

(The difference between the time required for each of the above seems to be due to the degree of photographing between each victim and a camera.)