교통사고처리특례법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles) is that the location of the accident in this case was a place where pedestrians could easily expect the crossing without permission, and that the accident was at night and at the time of the accident, and thus, it was a situation requiring more attention, and that there was no negligence on duty on the part of the defendant, considering the fact that the circumstance where the defendant was absent from work, and that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant, even though the traffic accident in this case occurred due to the negligence committed by violating the duty of front-time care, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case.
2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below
A. On November 4, 2012, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) around 18:10, the Defendant driven a shower car and proceeded at a speed of about 50 km per hour at a speed of about 50 km in the speed of 50 km away from the west-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-do along the four-lanes of the city-to-slow-do road in front of the west-do, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu. In such a case, a person engaging in driving a motor vehicle is at night, and at night, at non-fabb, while driving the motor vehicle with a duty of care to check and drive the course by his occupational negligence while neglecting the duty of care to drive the motor vehicle without permission from the left side of the Defendant’s proceeding direction, resulting in the death of the victim by running the motor vehicle on the front side of the motor vehicle and allowing the victim to drive the motor vehicle on the side.
B. The lower court found that the Defendant, at night, was able to drive along the eight-lane road from which the passage of the vehicle is relatively frequent and in and near the vicinity of the road along normal vehicle signal, and that the Defendant shocked the victim without permission, and that the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, i.e., the Defendant: