교통사고처리특례법위반(치사)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) if the defendant did not take the action more than 30 KK speed per hour, the result of the victim’s death would not occur; and (b) the defendant who entered the intersection must have inspected the front and the right and the right well; and (c) in light of the fact that the defendant did not properly perform his/her duty of the front and right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the relation
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized that the principle of trust is excessively expanded and applied and that there is no substantial relation between the result of the accident of this case and the death of victims is erroneous.
2. Determination
A. The court below held that the driver of a motor vehicle cannot be obliged to perform the duty of care to anticipate and prepare for the occurrence of an exceptional situation that is sufficient and difficult to expect by fulfilling his duty of care to avoid the outcome in preparation for an ordinary predicted situation. The so-called "the so-called principle of trust that the driver cannot be held liable for breach of the duty of care to the driver as long as the driver of a motor vehicle operated on the road with the other party's reliance on complying with all traffic laws and regulations, and on the basis of such trust, the driver cannot be held liable for the breach of the duty of care to the driver. In light of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant's cargo was sent directly under the course of his own vehicle while driving the motor vehicle from the Blsan bank to the front side, and the defendant's vehicle was operated on the left side of the road.