교통사고처리특례법위반(치사)
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a C-si.
On October 7, 2016, the Defendant driven the above taxi on October 7, 2016, and driven the road of four lanes in front of the intersection of the 242 (Large-dong), Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-do, at approximately 60km in speed, from the direction of the 3rd to the direction of the 3rd in mountain.
At the time, there was a crosswalk at night and at the front door, so there was a duty of care to confirm whether a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a way to reduce the speed and to see well the front door.
Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and did not discover the victim D who cross the crosswalk installed on the right side from the right side to the left side and got the victim to the above taxi and go beyond the ground.
Ultimately, around October 8, 2016, around 08:43, the Defendant caused the death of the victim due to the above occupational negligence by a traffic accident at the E Hospital.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. A survey report on actual conditions;
1. Video materials;
1. A death certificate (the Defendant, at the time of the instant accident, was negligent on duty in the Defendant as he complied with all traffic laws and regulations, and was in a situation in which it is impossible to avoid any unauthorized crossing of the victim.
Although it is argued that the accident is a road in the city of eight lanes after the accident occurred, it is reasonable according to the rule of experience that pedestrians who are crossing the accident without permission can be seen as unclaimed, and therefore, as a driver of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent an accident by properly examining the front door, and has fulfilled his duty of care only by complying with the signal or speed limit.
The point of accident in this case is a straight line, and the street, etc. could have sufficiently identified the person who passed the crosswalk as the street, and the front door of the defendant's vehicle.