A. Defendant

1) Legal principles (the part concerning the crime of causing general traffic obstruction and causing general traffic obstruction)

In the wind of the deceased victim non-indicted 2, who was stopped by the above non-indicted 2 driver's vehicle in violation of the duty of care, such as securing the safety distance, etc., the occurrence of an accident that led to the victim's non-indicted 3 driver's vehicle stopped prior to the accident. As such, the victims suffered an injury or died, it cannot be deemed that there was a causal relationship between the defendant's general traffic obstruction crime and the result of the victims' thought, and there

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

The sentence of the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle

1) The lower court determined to the effect that, under the legal doctrine that “the crime of death or injury caused by general traffic obstruction is a result aggravated crime, and there is a possibility of proximate causal relation and the result of thought between the relevant act and the result of the relevant act, and proximate causal relation in this case does not require the sole cause or direct cause of causing the defendant’s act and the death of the victim, and even if the victim or a third party competes with each other, it may be recognized, and the possibility of predictability may be recognized strictly by taking into account specific circumstances, such as the degree of the defendant’s act and the response status of the victim, even if the victim Nonindicted 2 was negligent in violating the duty of care, such circumstance alone does not necessarily mean that the causal relation between the defendant’s crime of general traffic obstruction and the result of the victim’s thought was severed, and that there was a possibility of the occurrence of such result in light of the defendant’

2) Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to proximate causal relation or predictability with respect to the crime of death caused by general traffic obstruction. Meanwhile, Supreme Court Decision 82Do322 Decided August 23, 1983 cited in the grounds for appeal cannot be invoked in the instant case with the different purport of the case. The defendant's argument in this part of the grounds for appeal is rejected.

B. Determination of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and prosecutor

The defendant and the prosecutor's assertion of unreasonable sentencing also can be seen.

The defendant appears to have caused the crime of this case in a sudden fashion with other drivers at the expense of the defendant. The defendant agreed with the victims except the victim non-indicted 1, 4, and 3, and 2 million won for the victim non-indicted 1 and 3. The defendant deposited 2 million won for the victim non-indicted 3, and made an effort to recover damage by agreement with the victim, etc. The defendant first committed the crime of general traffic obstruction in light of the favorable circumstances such as the defendant's primary crime, and the fact that the traffic of the vehicle is frequent, five-lanes on an expressway with low level, and the victim's life and injury is not severe or less severe. In light of the fact that the defendant violated the Act on Punishment of Violence, etc. (collective, deadly Weapons, etc.) and the Road Traffic Act without any danger and injury to the victim, and thus, there is no reason to see that the defendant's act of spreading the vehicle without any danger and injury to the victim's safety, and thus, there is no reason to regard that the defendant violated the law and regulations without any other reason.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)