과실치상
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The accused shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment of innocence against the accused.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is the Road Traffic Act that treats the baby vehicles as identical to pedestrians, so it should be noted that there is no contact between the baby vehicles and pedestrians.
However, even though the victim was tightly and was changing the direction of the baby carriage, the court below judged that there was negligence on the premise that the defendant was liable to protect pedestrians.
The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.
2. Determination
A. On July 18, 2018, around 10:53, the Defendant neglected his/her duty of care to attract the baby in front of the 48th floor waiting room in the Geum-gu, Busan, Busan, and the first floor waiting room in the Busan, the 48 Busan, Busan, (hereinafter referred to as “the Busan, Seosan,” and neglected his/her duty of care to prevent the baby from facing or suffering from the baby vehicle, and the victim B, who was passing through his/her place, had the baby go beyond the baby wheels, thereby resulting in the victim B, who was in need of treatment for about two weeks.
B. The lower court found the victim guilty of the facts charged by using the police statement protocol and CCTV video data as evidence.
다. 당심의 판단 원심 및 당심이 적법하게 채택ㆍ조사한 증거들을 종합하면, 피고인은 2018. 7. 18. 10:53경 유모차에 손녀를 태우고 부산대역 대합실 내 4번 출구 쪽 게이트 앞을 장전역 방향에서 온천장역 방향으로 진행하고 있었던 사실, 피해자는 부산대역 4번 출구 방향에서 부산대역 대합실로 진입하여 2번 출구 방향으로 진행한 사실, 피해자는 부산대역 4번 출구 쪽 게이트 앞을 지날 때 피고인이 밀고 간 유모차의 왼쪽에서 유모차보다 조금 앞에서 나란히 진행한 사실, 피해자는 진행방향 전면에 마주 오는 사람을 보고 잠시 멈칫하다
damage to a person who was suffering from Maju.