교통사고처리특례법위반등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) ① The point of the accident in this case is the road bended by several rains, each of which is linked to the road in this case and the deaf road in almost two sides of the road at the time, and the road in both sides of the road at that time is opened with a sound width, and it seems difficult for the victim to find the Defendant’s manager even if the victim did not neglect the front-time city due to the difficulty in securing the view of the victim due to the difficulty in securing the view of the victim. ② The Defendant returned to the road in which the victim had passed, and the Defendant returned to the road, again entered the road, and again entered the road or sounding the light, did not take measures to prevent accidents, such as informing the victim of the existence of the manager, and even if the half of the road was occupied, the principal cause of the accident in this case caused the Defendant’s violation of the duty of care.
Although it can be seen, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.
2. The lower court determined that the instant facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, acquitted.
Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records and arguments in the instant case, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s negligence in connection with the instant accident.
A. On June 7, 2015, the Defendant moved to the national highway 855 in Seosan-si, an asbestos fluenz.
The above road is a one-lane and a two-lane road, and there was no other vehicle in the road at the time.
B. As above, the Defendant: (a) entered the national highway with a replacement; (b) reported that C proceeds from the direction of getting a bicycle and then stopped at the edge of the road; and (c) stopped the Bosch Rexroth (C) but C stated to the effect that the Defendant Bosch Rexroth was personally found.