교통사고처리특례법위반(치사)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. In light of the following: (a) the summary of the grounds for appeal follows: (b) if the Defendant did not take the action at a speed exceeding 49 km per hour, the result of the victim’s death would not occur; and (c) it is difficult to see that the appearance of a traffic-oriented female on the crosswalk at night is an exceptional situation that is difficult to anticipate as the driver of the vehicle; and (d) it is sufficiently recognized that the causal relationship between the Defendant’s occupational negligence failing to accurately operate the Defendant’s speed and steering gear and the victim’s death.
Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it cannot be readily concluded that the causal relationship between the Defendant’s negligence and the victim’s death is recognized.
2. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of occupational negligence and the victim’s death are in a causal relationship solely on the ground that the Defendant was forced due to excessive violation of the speed limit.
It is difficult to conclude it.
The reasons for the decision were stated in detail.
The judgment below
In light of the records, the court below's finding of facts and determination are just, and there is no error of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles (the prosecutor seems to have asserted that the defendant would not have occurred until the result of the victim's death which the defendant had not been under speed, but there is no evidence to readily conclude that the victim would not have died in case where the defendant is at a speed of 70 km per hour, which is within the jurisdiction of the provision, and there is a conflict with the victim who driven Oralba, while driving Oralba). 3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.