beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.04.27 2017노1269

교통사고처리특례법위반(치사)

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, by mistake of fact, or by mistake of legal principles, violated the duty of care due to the lack of predictability and possibility of avoiding the instant accident.

Therefore, the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Death, etc.) cannot be established.

2) The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of two million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (2 million won) of the Prosecutor’s judgment is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a C-si.

On October 7, 2016, the Defendant driven the above taxi on October 7, 2016, and driven the road of about 60 km in the direction of about 3:0 km in the direction of about 242 parallel parallels in Daejeon-gu Daejeon, Daejeon.

At the time, there was a crosswalk at night and at the front door, so there was a duty of care to confirm whether a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a way to reduce the speed and to see well the front door.

The defendant neglected his duty of care and did not discover the victim D who cross the crosswalk installed in the front bank from the right side to the left side, and got the victim to the above taxi and go beyond the ground due to the negligence that proceeded.

On October 8, 2016, at around 08:43, the Defendant caused the death of the victim due to occupational negligence, from E Hospital, the death of the victim due to traffic accidents.

B. If a pedestrian signal, etc. on a crosswalk is marked redly, the pedestrian in violation of the signal shall not wear the way. As such, it is reasonable for the driver of the vehicle to expect the pedestrian not to cross the signal in violation of the signal, and there is no duty of care to drive the pedestrian by disregarding the red signal and predicting that the pedestrian is his own mar or her original marbling.

However, such;