beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.05.18 2016노1953

교통사고처리특례법위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The instant accident was caused by an act of God, even though the Defendant fulfilled his duty of care on duty.

The judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant's negligence in the accident of this case was erroneous.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one million won penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant at the time of the instant accident, at the time of the instant accident, should temporarily stop the vehicle while crossing the sidewalk, check whether there is no person driving the vehicle, and cross the vehicle, and check whether there is a person driving the vehicle, and then cross the vehicle. However, the Defendant’s negligence, which did not perform the duty of care

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of facts.

When the victim was getting on and off a bicycle in accordance with the report by the investigative agency, the victim found the string to the vehicular road at the construction site, and plucked up the bicycle hand on the right side.

was stated.

The victim is also in the court of the court below that when the bicycle of the victim faces with the motor vehicle of the defendant, the motor vehicle of the defendant is driving.

was stated.

In addition, in the court of the court below, the victim's vehicle and the place facing the defendant's vehicle are on the sidewalk, and the victim exceeded the bicycle hand on the right side, and the sidewalk and the roadway were over the sidewalk and the roadway, and the defendant's motor vehicle was faced with and stopped in the future.

was stated.

As such, the victim's statement is consistent from the investigative agency to the court of the court below.

If the defendant temporarily temporarily stops his/her motor vehicle as claimed by the defendant, it seems that the victim who was in office has been damaged by the motor vehicle of the defendant or has set the collision at the same time.

The defendant is left by an investigative agency to the court of first instance.