교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In the event of the instant traffic accident, the Defendant did not have driven more than 60 km speed exceeding 20 km per hour.
(b) The sentencing division (the first instance: Ten months of imprisonment without prison labor, the suspension of execution, two years of social service, 200 hours of social service, and 160 hours of attending a compliance driving lecture);
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is engaged in driving a vehicle B QM3.
On August 19, 2017, the Defendant driven the said car at around 21:10, and driven the two-lane road in the same Do C in the direction of the two-lanes in the two-lane direction in the two-lane direction.
At all times, the speed of restriction is 60 km per hour and a crosswalk without any signal apparatus is installed in the front door, so in such a case, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle by complying with the speed limit and by checking whether there is a person driving the motor vehicle in front of the crosswalk in order to reduce speed in front of the crosswalk and as well as whether there is a person driving the crosswalk in front of the crosswalk.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and continued to speed more than 29 km, and found the victim D(62 years of age) and E(56 years of age) who cross the above crosswalk back to the right side from the left side of the Defendant to the right side of the Defendant, and operated it rapidly, but did not avoid it, and received the front part of the Defendant’s driver’s car.
Ultimately, the Defendant suffered, by negligence in the course of performing the above duties, the injury of the victim D, such as the removal of the body frame, which requires approximately 8 weeks of medical treatment, and the injury of the victim E, such as the removal of the body frame, which requires approximately 12 weeks of medical treatment.
B. The lower court’s judgment is deemed to have analyzed, according to the digital analysis appraisal report, that it is impossible to measure the speed from the point B of the said appraisal report to the point at the time of shock, but the said appraisal report and the remainder submitted by the prosecutor.