교통사고처리특례법위반
1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant suffered injury to the victims by negligence in violation of the signal at the time and place indicated in the facts charged of this case, and despite sufficient evidence to support it, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge it. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion
2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who is engaged in driving a rocketing car, and around 08:40 on September 29, 201, the Defendant driven the said rocketing car and proceeded in two lanes between the three-lanes in front of the new village located outside the mountain of the mountain of the Si/Eup/Myeon in the front direction of the city at the front direction of the city.
At the same time, there was a private-distance intersection where traffic is controlled by signal, etc. (hereinafter “instant intersection”). In such a case, there was a duty of care for a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle to live well with the signal, etc. on the front line and to drive the motor vehicle safely according to the traffic signal.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and went against the signal signal of the front, and caused the Defendant to shock the front part of the frame wing-wing vehicle operated by the victim D (the 40-year old) in front of the said rocketing car by negligence, even though the signal of the front is red signal.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant traffic accident”. Ultimately, the Defendant suffered, by negligence in the above business, injury to the victim D, such as minculation of minculation in the right place, etc., which requires approximately 8 weeks of treatment, injury to the victim E (V, 49 years of age) who was on board the Defendant’s vehicle, such as the minculum culp, etc., requiring approximately 4 weeks of treatment, and injury to the victim F (V, 48 years of age), such as mincule culs and dumes, which require approximately 2 weeks of treatment.
B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) legal doctrine and various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.