교통사고처리특례법위반(치사)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) ① Even in CCTV images, etc., it is difficult to clearly determine that the victim changed the vehicle immediately before the instant accident; ② At the time of the instant accident, there was night and rain, and thus, the restricted speed was 48km/h. The Defendant was negligent in neglecting the duty of due to the Defendant’s fault exceeding the restricted speed and the duty of her front-time watch. ③ The location of the instant accident is the location immediately before the intersection, and there was a road that is accessible to the Defendant and the victim’s moving direction; ④ The Defendant could have discovered the victim within the restricted distance, and ④ The suspension distance was longer visible if the Defendant reduced within the restricted speed, and thus, the causal link between the Defendant’s fault and the victim’s death can be sufficiently recognized.
Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no proof of facts charged, and the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The lower court determined: (a) According to CCTV images and the written appraisal of traffic accident analysis by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, etc., the Defendant was proceeding without changing the vehicle line in one way until the collision of this case; (b) the victim was proceeding more than the Defendant, while entering the two lanes, could be recognized that the instant accident occurred in the course of plucking, plucking, and entering the two lanes to the left by the left side; (c) the point where the instant accident occurred is a place difficult to anticipate that the victim would block the Defendant’s proceeding by means of rapid plucking, plucking, etc.; and (c) the stop distance is about 36.0m to 41.1m if the Defendant assumed that he was rapidly operating.