beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2014.01.16 2013노860

교통사고처리특례법위반

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for not less than five months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Considering the fact that the speed of the defendant's laune taxi operated by the defendant is shown on the black cream screen installed in the above taxi only after approximately 2 seconds and 2.5 seconds, and that the defendant needs about 0.7 seconds until he takes action, considering the fact that the defendant is aware of the change of the laune line and the defendant needs about 0.7 seconds until he takes action, the traffic accident occurred due to force majeure even though the defendant performed his duty of care as a driver, such as reducing the speed of the above taxi on January 15, 2013 at around 19:16:49, the time when the defendant tried to change the course to one lane over the 1st and the second two-lane boundary of the victim D driving. However, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that there was a negligence otherwise.

The punishment (six months of imprisonment without prison labor, two years of suspended execution, community service, 120 hours) imposed by the court of unfair sentencing on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

On January 15, 2013, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant was driving a rocketing taxi around the 19:16th day of January 15, 2013, and was proceeding from the Mande-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul, with one-lane 26-7 as the air dives-line outflow from the Mande-dong, and the victim D driven the Ordeba, and was proceeding with the same two-lanes of the said three-lanes of the said three-lanes, and the other vehicles driven along the above two-lanes of the Defendant’s driving using the said one-lane prior to the said Ora taxi, but the Defendant continued to drive the said two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the one-lane.