[교통사고처리특례법위반][공1990.7.15.(877),1405]
Whether there exists a causal relationship between the negligence of the defendant and the death of the victim where the victim died in another vehicle after the victim was broken down on the road because it was driven by the defendant (affirmative)
In a case where the defendant, while driving off the off-to-road at night, caused the victim to walk the road without permission, and caused the victim to break the road on the road, and where the victim was killed by another person after about 40 to 60 seconds, the defendant's negligence negligent in driving the ebbbbbbbb in front of the road on the road and caused the victim to die. Furthermore, in a case where the driver of the following vehicle is expected to be able to reverse the victim even if the driver of the vehicle neglected to take over the road at night when 40 to 60 seconds in consideration of the road conditions near the site of the accident in this case, if the driver of the vehicle neglected to take over the road at night, even if 40 to 60 seconds in front of the downband down of the road at night, there was a proximate causal relation between them.
Article 17 of the Criminal Act, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents
[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)
Defendant
Defendant
Attorney Han Han-chul
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 89No5346 delivered on February 9, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
The defendant's grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined together.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, if the accident site of this case is located near the crosswalk on which warning, etc. is installed among the second line of the road with frequent traffic of vehicles, and the two sides are concentrated, and the road near the accident site is composed of about 103 degrees right angles, and it is at the night, and it is a place where the view of the vehicle is obstructed by the beam light of the vehicle at night, and the defendant is at a speed of about 50 kilometers per hour while driving the west at night and driving the second line at a speed of about 60 kilometers per hour, and without permission the road from the right side of the direction, and the defendant neglected to drive the vehicle on the front line of the first and second line of the second line of this case and neglected to drive the vehicle on the front line of this case after about 40 seconds to 60 kilometers, and thus, the court below determined that the defendant was negligent in driving the vehicle on the front line of this case and by neglecting the safety of the victim at a speed exceeding 60 kilometers per hour.
In light of road conditions, time of accident, circumstances of accident, etc. near the point of accident duly admitted by the court below, there is causation between the defendant's negligence and the victim's death (see Supreme Court Decision 72Do433, Apr. 25, 1972). Thus, the defendant cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime of occupational injury and death.
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the possibility of the outcome, the possibility of the outcome and the causal relation in the negligence negligence, or by misunderstanding the rules of evidence. The arguments are groundless.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)