[업무상과실치사][집14(2)형,012]
The actual cases recognized by the driver's negligence;
If the accident could have been prevented if the driver had been operated by taking into account the right and the right and the right and the right and the accident could have been caused by the failure of the victim who tried to cross the road on 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 right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the
Articles 14 and 13 of the Criminal Act
Defendant
Attorney Kim Yong-young
Chuncheon District Court Decision 66No33 delivered on March 24, 1966
The appeal is dismissed.
60 days under detention after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.
The defendant's first ground for appeal is examined.
However, according to the original judgment, the court below held that the driver's license of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents by driving the motor vehicle on the front side and the left side, and that the defendant neglected his duty to see only the front side, and that the victim who intends to cross the right side on the left side of the road was caused by negligence that was found late later, and that the judgment was legitimate, and that the original judgment was compared with records, and if the defendant was operated while taking into account the left side, the accident in question could have been prevented, and therefore, the original judgment cannot be viewed as forcing the defendant to conduct an act that could not have the possibility of expectation, and the defendant cannot be employed as an independent opinion.
The second ground of appeal is examined.
However, if the defendant's interrogation protocol prepared by the public prosecutor shows that there was a king road crossingr while driving on the front door and the right, and operated, it would have been able to prevent the occurrence of this accident, and if it was operated, it would have been able to prevent the occurrence of this accident only on the roads in rural areas in which 6 p.m. at the time she was 6 p.m.. at the time of her own. The left and right are different, and the accident occurred due to negligence, if it was found that the defendant's negligence can be recognized, and it is obvious that the defendant's negligence can be recognized, and it cannot be viewed that the facts are recognized as evidence against the recognized facts, and there is no reason to discuss.
The third ground of appeal is examined.
However, in the case of this case where the imprisonment without prison labor for eight months is sentenced, the argument that the sentence of the court below is excessive and unfair does not fall under any of the grounds stipulated in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is not a legitimate ground for appeal against the original judgment, so it cannot be adopted.
Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and 60 days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu