특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the above judgment is publicly notified.
1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who is engaged in driving a motor vehicle with detached motor vehicle B.
On August 23:20, 2015, the Defendant driven the above car and continued to drive it on the 28-lane in the inland waters of Yeongi-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu and the Cheongju Postal Office, one-lane road in front of the Cheongju-si Postal Office Postal Office Postal Office Postal Service, from the land-distance protection area of the Cheongju-dong Industrial Complex, to the front of the Cheongju-dong University.
At the time, there is a night and a place where the center line of yellow solid lines is installed, so the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle and prevent the accident in advance by safely driving the motor vehicle.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and caused the victim C (22 years old, South) (hereinafter referred to as “the victim”) who gets a bicycle along the opposite lane from the front door of the Chungcheongnam-do Industrial Complex, to go beyond the floor with the bicycle in order to avoid the said car.
As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as impairment of a face requiring medical treatment for about three weeks due to such occupational negligence. At the same time, the Defendant, while destroying a bicycle owned by the victim to the extent that the repair cost of KRW 25,000, did not immediately stop and fled without taking measures, such as aiding the damaged person.
2. Summary of reasons for appeal;
A. In this case, the absence of a breach of duty of care due to mistake of facts (i.e., breach of duty of care) occurred on one-lane road where a vehicle is parked on both sides of the road at night.
At that time, the central line was crossed off almost at the time, so it was virtually impossible to identify the driver as the driver of the vehicle, so the function as the central line was lost.
In addition, the defendant was forced to go beyond the median line due to a parked vehicle that turned on an emergency, etc. on the front direction, and the defendant is sufficiently aware of this situation and is running.