교통사고처리특례법위반(치사)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, as the Defendant neglected to perform the duty of care required for the work, such as the duty of prior care, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was an occupational negligence on the part of the Defendant.
shall not be deemed to exist.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of suspended sentence of imprisonment without prison labor for August) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person engaging in driving a C-si.
On July 30, 2016, the Defendant driven the above taxi on July 20, 2016, and driven the front road in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D along with three lanes each hour at a speed of 30km between the 4-lane and the 30-km away from the breadth of the Navy Center.
In such cases, at night, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle had a duty of care to live well on the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the duty of care to prevent the accident in advance.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and found the Victim F (F) who was crossing the road on the right side from the left side of the Defendant’s proceeding direction due to negligence of neglecting the duty of her own on the front side, but did not avoid it, and had the victim go beyond the ground by receiving the victim as a white part on the left side of the said taxi.
Ultimately, around July 30, 2016, around 22:31, the Defendant caused the victim to die by occupational negligence, and caused the victim to receive medical treatment from the hospital in the Seoul Metropolitan Government Bolaro 20-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul.
B. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle in the relevant legal doctrine is obliged to perform his/her duty of care to the extent that he/she could avoid the outcome in preparation for an ordinary predicted situation.