교통사고처리특례법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) around 05:32, 90 minutes after the occurrence of the instant accident, the time of death was 05:32; (b) the victim died after the second accident by the Defendant, not after the occurrence of the first accident; (c) the Defendant’s taxi appears to have been faced with the victim’s bridge by overcoming the victim’s bridge; and (d) the victim’s blood was also significant; and (e) the victim’s bridge was not caused by the Defendant’s act but by the first accident, even if the victim’s cab was in the middle of the first accident, if the Defendant’s cab was in the middle of the second accident, it would be deemed that the Defendant’s blood was more serious; and (e) the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that there was no causal relationship between the Defendant’s second accident and the victim’s death, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. In order to recognize the causal relationship between the fault of the person who caused the subsequent traffic accident and the victim's death where it is not revealed that the cause of the prior traffic accident and the subsequent traffic accident occurred and the victim's death, if the person who caused the subsequent traffic accident did not neglect his/her duty of care, the fact that the victim did not cause the death should be proved, and the burden of proof should be borne by the prosecutor.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8822 delivered on October 26, 2007, etc.). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment’s acquittal and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, a thorough examination of the reasoning of the lower judgment’s acquittal of the Defendant is conducted, in light of the background leading up to the occurrence of the instant primary accident and the secondary accident, the result of the autopsy on the cause of the victim’s death, the Defendant’s vehicle operating speed, degree of shock, and the reverse part, etc., as properly indicated by the lower court.