교통사고처리특례법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The case is remanded to Busan District Court Dong Branch.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the victim filed an application for factual inquiry to prove the fact that he/she suffered serious injury due to the instant traffic accident, and the victim filed an application as a witness, but the court below dismissed the application and sustained serious injury only by the evidence submitted by
On the ground that it is insufficient to view the crime of this case as a crime falling under Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and thus, the judgment of the court below was rendered, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The lower court determined that the Defendant was driving a D EF rocketing car on the part of the Defendant who was driving the D EF rocketing car by making the right-hand to the C Scarman.
E In order to avoid collision with the Defendant’s vehicle, E would operate the steering gear rapidly on the right side, and had the utility poles located on the right side of the operation direction of the said rocketing vehicle, and caused the victim F (54 tax) on the steering force of the said rocketing vehicle, who was on the front line of the said rocketing vehicle, to suffer an injury in need of high-speed artificial crypization due to the ground of the laverization cutting before and after the right string and the pelgal damage, etc. However, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem the above injury as being a serious injury, and the said accident constitutes Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the said Switzerland Trazor was subscribed to the comprehensive insurance policy of the Korea Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.
B. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.
In other words, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, it is recognized that the victim of the accident in this case is unable to return to the original state even if he was forced to return to the original state, even if he was forced to return to the main state, due to the occurrence of the accident in this case.