교통사고처리특례법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the conflict between the victim's distance from the traffic accident comprehensive analysis report and the victim's shoulder and head's length to the final stop location (23 43 m) at the time of the accident, the movement speed of the defendant's vehicle at the time of the accident is predicted to about 70 km/h, and the defendant's additional request for analysis as to whether the vehicle's last stop location at the time of the accident can be viewed as the movement distance, it is clearly stated that the above operation distance cannot be judged in a scam way. Thus, the defendant's excessive fact at the time of the traffic accident at issue is recognized.
B. In addition, if the Defendant had been driving in the two-lanes of the six-lane road, and even if not speeded, if he faithfully fulfilled the duty of putting in front of the road, he could sufficiently avoid the victim’s bicycle going across the four-lane line on the right side of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant’s negligence of neglecting the duty of putting in front of the four-lane road in front of the other is also recognized.
C. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that it is difficult to see the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case as the defendant's negligence is erroneous.
2. Determination
A. 1) Whether the Defendant was under speed at the time of the instant traffic accident, the lower court: (a) the person preparing the “comprehensive traffic accident analysis report” prepared by the Road Traffic Authority at the time of the instant traffic accident; (b) estimated the distance from the victim’s vehicle to the last stop point after being shocked by the Defendant’s vehicle to the point at which it was last stopped by 23 to 43 meters; and (c) calculated the speed of Defendant’s vehicle at 59 to 80.9km by applying the surface inspection coefficient; and (b) reproving the situation of collision with the human body model of bicycle riding; and (c) as a result, the shoulder and head part of the bicycle driver’s shoulder and head part at the speed of 70km at the front glass of the vehicle (in the actual accident, the Defendant and the victim.