교통사고처리특례법위반(치사)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. At the time of the case, the Defendant could not anticipate the victim to wear the crosswalk in violation of the signal or avoid the conflict between the Defendant’s vehicle and the victim.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (under 8 months) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the Defendant’s misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles
A. The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a passenger vehicle B in the instant facts charged.
On December 23, 2017, the Defendant driven the above car on December 17:46, 2017, and led to the intersection of risan, which is located in the second degree of Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Seocheon-do, to the Hongcheon-do, Hongcheon-do, the two-lanes of the two-lane.
At night and at the front of the road, there was an intersection in which the crosswalk was installed. In such a case, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by accurately operating the steering gear and the operation of the steering gear in order to prevent accidents by reducing the speed prior to entering the crosswalk and properly examining the right and the right of the road.
Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and did not accurately operate the steering gear and brakes without accurately operating the steering gear and brakes, and due to the negligence of the walking, etc., the defendant received the victim C (the age of 47) who dried the crosswalk from the left side to the right side when the walking light is red, and made the victim go beyond the floor.
As a result, the Defendant caused the death of the victim due to the above occupational negligence by an external shock shock, which was receiving treatment from an E hospital located in Chuncheon-si D on September 19, 2018.
B. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant stated at an investigative agency that he did not consider the victim at all; and (b) the lower court stated that he did not consider the victim at all.