A. According to each evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the proximate causal relationship between the negligence of Defendant B and C and the death of the victim can be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence (0 months of imprisonment without prison labor and two years of suspended execution) imposed by the court below in the grounds of appeal by Defendant A is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where it is not revealed that the cause of the prior traffic accident and the subsequent traffic accident occurred and the victim caused the death, in order to recognize the causal relationship between the fault of the person who caused the subsequent traffic accident and the victim's death, the fact that the person who caused the subsequent traffic accident did not neglect his/her duty of care should be proved that the victim did not cause the death, and the burden of proof is the prosecutor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8822, Oct. 26, 2007). The circumstances presented by the court below are as follows: (a) the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below are: (b) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below; (c) the defendant A, as at the time of the instant case, was driving a motor vehicle at a speed of at least 70 kilometers per hour, while driving a motor vehicle at a speed of more than 70 kilometers per hour, without viewing the victim crossinging the road, and without lowering the speed, was receiving the victim with the front part of the

, 이로 인하여 피해자가 약 10미터 정도 튕겨나가 도로 바닥에 넘어진 점, ② 위 테라칸 차량에는 운전석 앞 범퍼 부분이 파손되고 방향지시등이 깨어져 비산물이 도로 바닥에 떨어질 정도로 강한 충격의 흔적이 있었던 점, ③ 1차 사고 후에 택시기사인 M가 이 사건 현장에 있던 피고인 A을 보고 택시승객으로 생각하여 피해자가 쓰러져 있던 이 사건 1차로 바로 옆에...