A. In full view of the background leading up to the occurrence of the instant traffic accident (as to Defendant B), the shock process and physical damage of Defendant B and the victim, the cause of the victim’s death, and the time interval between the first and second accidents, etc., Defendant B’s death can be recognized as having reached the victim’s death due to the second accident.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant B was erroneous by misapprehending the facts.

B. Improper sentencing (as to Defendant A)

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below held that: (a) Defendant A’s franchise vehicle is proceeding at a speed of 102km/h; (b) found the victim at a speed of 102km; and (c) caused the shock itself; (b) whether there was a relationship between the first accident and the death; and (c) whether there was a possibility that the victim would have already died before the second accident; and (d) whether there was a fatal damage caused by the shock of the first accident, the National Institute of Scientific Investigation cannot be determined by considering the fact that the victim would not have reached the death if there was no second accident paid by Defendant B.

It is difficult to see

On the other hand, the defendant B was acquitted.

In other words, the shock speed of the victim of the vehicle at the time of the first accident is estimated to be approximately 88.5km/h, the victim fell away from about 17 meters on the two-lane road due to the shock, ② the victim appears to have been on the 1st to 3 minutes before the second accident after the second accident, ③ the traffic accident analysis letter also includes “the victim is added to any accident in the first and second accidents.”