beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.11.07 2018노5315

교통사고처리특례법위반(치사)

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: ① The road of this case was a general road other than an expressway; ② the road of this case was expected to have a person crossing the road on the crosswalk immediately before the accident site; ② the victim is confirmed from around 00:58:54 to around 00:54, the victim is crossing the bus of this case; ③ the victim is confirmed to enter the two-lane direction of the defendant's proceeding; ③ the traffic accident stated in the facts charged of this case (hereinafter "accident of this case") was proceeding at the speed of 60 km at average speed of 75 km per hour; ④ the road of this case was secured at the accident site of this case, ④ the passage of this case was almost unfolded at the accident site of this case, but at night, the victim is not discovered due to street lights, street lights, private persons, etc.

In full view of the fact that it is difficult to see the victim, and the fact that the defendant was confirmed to take the booms following the shocking of the victim, the defendant was forced to find the victim more than 1-2 seconds prior to the collision with the victim.

It is difficult to see it.

From 00:58:54 to find out the victim from around 00:54 to immediately lower the speed or take a stop measure, the defendant would have been able to avoid the accident of this case even if he would have been able to avoid the accident even if he would have been able to avoid the accident of this case.

Even so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the Defendant was not guilty on account of no occupational negligence.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the Defendant driving a Category II cargo vehicle.

On February 10, 2018, the Defendant was driving the above cargo vehicle around 01:05, and then driving ahead of the hotel in D when lightlighting, the Defendant continued straightening at a speed of 75 km per hour at a speed of 75 km per hour, depending on the three-lane distance from the top side of the luminous function.

At the time, the automobile is at night.