[교통사고처리특례법위반][공1991.2.15.(890),675]
A. Whether a person who drives on an expressway with a 20-meter or less in sight of the tram can have fulfilled his/her duty of care solely on the fact that he/she simply complies with the restricted speed (negative)
B. Whether the defendant's negligence in the course of driving the motor vehicle is likely to affect the establishment of the crime on the ground that the accident signs are not installed on the rear side of the damaged motor vehicle, and the victims entered the surface of the victim (negative)
(a) If the upper limit of the area of the expressway was 20 meters or less in sight of the area of the expressway, the driver of the vehicle should have taken such measures as reducing the speed so that the vehicle could immediately stop on the road regardless of the speed limit. Therefore, the mere fact that the driver simply followed the speed limit cannot be said to have fulfilled his/her duty of care.
B. In the event that an accident was caused by the Defendant’s neglect of duty to care on an expressway, the accident sign was not installed on the rear side of the damaged vehicle, and even if the victims did not evacuate as other passengers, the occurrence of the crime by the Defendant does not affect the conclusion of the crime.
Article 268 of the Criminal Act
Defendant
Attorney Yoon Young-young
Daejeon District Court Decision 89No932 delivered on November 30, 1989
The appeal is dismissed.
The number of days of detention included in the original sentence after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the remaining days of detention after deducting the number of days of detention included in the original sentence from the original sentence from the original sentence.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are also examined.
Considering the employment evidence of the court of first instance cited by the court below in comparison with the records, the court may fully recognize the defendant's crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and it does not find any violation of the rules of evidence.
In addition, if the area of the accident is frightened and the height of the area is less than 20 meters, it should have taken measures such as reducing speed to the extent that it can immediately stop immediately after the discovery of the obstacle regardless of the speed limit on the expressway, the duty of care cannot be fulfilled merely by the fact that the restricted speed has been observed. In addition, as long as the defendant's duty of care is found to have caused an accident that leads to a sudden stop of the vehicle, the accident sign was not installed on the side of the damaged vehicle, and even if the victims were on the road after the damaged vehicle without evacuation as other passengers, the crime of the defendant is not affected by the judgment. Therefore, the judgment of the court below does not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the duty of care of the driver of the vehicle, or failing to exhaust all deliberations.
All arguments are groundless.
Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the remaining days of detention included in the original sentence shall be included in the calculation of the remaining days of detention after the appeal is made by the first and second judgments. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won