The summary of the judgment of innocence against the defendant shall be published.

The defendant is a person who drives a franchise private taxi.

Around 03:50 on October 3, 2014, the Defendant driven the above taxi and proceeded along the two-lanes of the three-lanes of the three-lanes of the three-lanes of the three-lanes from the studs of the studs of the studs of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu to drive the 103-ray of the post offices. At night, at night, the front side was an intersection where signal is installed. As a person engaging in driving a motor vehicle, he/she has a duty of care to take care of preventing accidents in advance by starting from driving the studs of the front line with the front and rear left side. If the front line is red, he/she has a duty of care to safely stop along the right side of the stop line and to prevent accidents in advance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and stopped above the stop line and stopped on the crosswalk, and without properly examining the front and rear left side, caused the death of the victim E (the age of 26) who was driving on the front side of the F CB400 Obaon driven by the victim E (the age of 26) due to the occupational negligence from the start side of the motor vehicle due to the violation of the vehicle stop signal, resulting in the death of the victim due to the prolonged long-term damage, etc. at the Solar Hospital in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul on October 3, 2014 by shocking the front side of the fB400 Obaon driven by the victim E (the age of 26).

2. Claims by the defendant and defense counsel;

There is a fact that the defendant stopped in violation of the stop line before green signal turn on, but there is no causal relationship between the fault of the stop line and the accident of this case, ② in the case of the departure of the vessel, there is no occupational negligence on the part of the defendant, and ③ even if the departure of the vessel is recognized as the defendant's occupational negligence, there is no causal relationship between the negligence and the accident of this case.

3. Determination

A. According to the results of the examination of evidence, such as the examination of witness during the trial process, the reproduction of video images, and documentary evidence, the following circumstances are acknowledged.

① At the time of the occurrence of the instant case, the Defendant stopped by reporting red signal at the front of the distance at the male post office in distress (hereinafter referred to as “instant intersection”) while proceeding by using a two-lane radius from the maleline to the maleline of the Silung-dong.

② On the front side of the Defendant’s driving direction, a stop line was installed, and a crosswalk of 8m in width was installed in front of 2.9m from the stop line to the Defendant’s driving direction. However, the Defendant stopped the front part of the stop to exceed the stop line and up to the end of the crosswalk.

③ After about 10 seconds from the above stop point, the Defendant moved a taxi to a small side and stopped again, and accordingly, the front part of the taxi was located in the middle string of the partitions that comes first to the direction of the Defendant from among the two partitionss of the crosswalks.

④ After about 15 seconds from the time of the second stop, the Defendant started proceeding slowly with a taxi (from the beginning point of the proceeding, the signal, etc., which is considered to have been changed to the right side on the left side on the basis of the direction of the Defendant’s proceeding, i.e., the vehicle moving to the right side on the left side, i. the signal, etc., which is considered to have been changed to the yellow signal), and the signal, etc. on the front side of the Defendant’s proceeding was changed from red to green in the direction of the Defendant’s proceeding (the signal, etc., which might have been considered to have been changed to the red signal at the same time). At that point, the Defendant’s taxi front-hander line was still located in the second partitions of the above crosswalk, and the Defendant continued to proceed to the front side.

⑤ At the time when the signal, etc. on the front side of the Defendant’s proceeding was changed from red to green, the victim’s front part of the front side of the taxi was shocked by the back side of the Defendant’s taxi at the time when the signal, etc. was changed from red to 2 to 14/15 second.

6. When the victim had been entered within the scope of black booming of witness vehicles, the light of the Hague was already driven by the light of the Hdart and the light of the Hdart was turned down. At the time of the defendant's shocking of the taxi, the light of the Hdart was completely cut down to the floor and completely turned down.

(7) The injured party shall drive the ozone part at the time and shall be the Dok-dongside from the gate of a literature tunnel.

즉 피고인의 진행 방면 기준으로는 좌측에서 우측 방면으로 진행하여 이 사건 교차로에 이르게 되었다. 그런데 교통사고분석 감정서에 의하면 목격자 차량의 블랙박스 영상 내에서 확인 가능한 부분만을 기초로 하여 피해자의 주행 속도를 약 시속 72㎞로 계산하면, 피해자의 오토바이가 이 사건 교차로를 향하여 진행하다가 사고 지점으로부터 약 57m 전에 이르렀을 때 이미 피해자 진행방향의 신호는 적색 신호로 바뀌었던 것으로 계산된다.2) 특히 위 감정서를 작성한 증인 G의 증언에 의하면, 피해자의 오토바이는 당시 전도되어 도로 바닥에 마찰하는 상태이어서 속도가 느려졌을 것인데도 그 상태에서 확인되는 속도만도 약 시속 72㎞에 이르기 때문에, 피해자의 오토바이가 전도되기 전에 실제로 주행하던 속도는 72㎞보다 상당히 더 빨랐을 것이라는 예상이 가능하고, 그렇다면 위와 같이 계산한 거리 57m도 훨씬 더 길어질 수 있다는 것이다.

8. At the time of the instant case, the blood alcohol concentration of the victim was found to have been 0.102% high.

9. The intersection of this case is located on the left side of the defendant's entry into the intersection (the right side side side of the victim's entry into the intersection), and the building and width are located outside the intersection, and the crosswalk is installed outside the intersection, and it is not possible to see the vehicle of the other party whose cab or victim's stobane enters the intersection from their own direction until the crossing of this case enters the intersection.

B. Determination as to the violation of the suspension line

① According to the witness G’s testimony and the written appraisal of traffic accident analysis, G, as well as G, when the Defendant stopped in compliance with the stop line at the time of the instant case after green signal turned on, and if the Defendant was to start normally after a green signal turn on even when the Defendant was stopped in violation of the stop line to the same extent as at the time of the instant case, he presented his opinion that the possibility of occurrence of the instant accident is low. If so, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act of stopping in violation of the stop line was the cause of the instant accident in a natural sense.

② In addition, the reason why the act of stopping a vehicle by breaking a stop line installed in front of a crosswalk under the Road Traffic Act and the Road Traffic Act and subordinate statutes is to prevent the accident of this case from entering the intersection at the point where the vehicle reaches the higher time by allowing the driver to stop the vehicle at a distance equivalent to the intersection at the time of stopping. According to the traffic accident analysis appraisal report, the defendant was in the situation where the green signal moves about about 10 meters from the point where it turns on, and therefore, if the defendant starts with the same method, it is difficult to say that the width of the crosswalk, the front line of the taxi, and the victim's right to the taxi, in light of the defendant's shock points, etc., it is difficult to say that there was a proximate causal relation between the defendant's taxi first and the accident of this case by allowing the driver to stop the vehicle at the time of stopping. Therefore, even if the defendant violated the duty of care, it is not possible to stop the accident in front of the accident of this case.

C. Determination as to departure of a vessel

1) In order to evaluate the driver of a vehicle causing a traffic accident as negligence on duty, the driver’s act at issue is not sufficient to be regarded as an act of violating specific duty of care required in the pertinent situation, not merely an abstract duty violation.

In addition, the contents of the duty of care required in the situation are set on the basis of how the possibility of traffic accident can be predicted and expected to be avoided from the driver's point of view in the situation.

However, in light of the following circumstances, apart from whether the Defendant had an abstract duty of care or a duty of compliance with traffic regulations that the Defendant should not be elected at the time of the instant accident, it is anticipated that the Defendant, who first entered the intersection after the signal in the direction was changed to a green signal, may have a vehicle entering the instant intersection in violation of speed signals on the left side of his driving direction, and thus, it may be sufficient to recognize the specific duty of care, such as the Defendant’s failure to depart from the said vehicle in order to avoid the occurrence of such a result, or by paying more attention to the aforementioned vehicle during the course of the departure, cannot be deemed as having to be recognized.

① Since the building and street trees around the intersection of this case are difficult to confirm whether the Defendant entered the road in the direction of the running of the Defendant, prior to the entry of the intersection to a certain degree, the vehicle is going to the left side of the road in this case.

② A witness H, who was the witness of the instant accident, testified that he was able to listen to the fact that he could have been presumed to have been the victim’s right before the instant accident occurred even when he stopped on the left-hand left-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle and shuts down the glass in his own vehicle in the signal atmosphere. However, it is difficult to view that anyone could easily distinguish the point at which the instant accident occurred from one direction of the intersection.

2) Even if the Defendant’s preferred act was an act in breach of specific duty of care and can be assessed as occupational negligence, it is difficult to view that there exists a causal relationship between the negligence and the instant accident in light of the following circumstances.

① The instant accident occurred at the point of time more than four seconds after the Defendant started to start, and at the point of time when the signal, etc. was changed to a green signal, almost three seconds.

② The defendant's taxi is not a part of the victim's inland part but a part of the victim's inland part is the back wheels on the left side of the defendant's taxi.

③ As seen earlier, when the signal, etc. in the Defendant’s direction changed to a green signal, that is, at the time when the signal, etc. in the direction of the victim was changed to a red signal, the location of the victim’s direction shall be calculated as about 57 meters from the point of accident to the point of accident, and when considering the actual speed of the victim’s situation where the signal was not turned out, the point where the victim recognized the red signal was later than the above 57 meters.

④ At the time, the victim was the state of blood alcohol level of 0.102%, and the part of the back wheels of the defendant taxi left side of the defendant taxi was shocked by Oratoba before entering the instant intersection. Thus, the victim’s ground of Oratobabbab was not the possibility of being frighted by the victim’s drinking state, and there is also room to deem that the instant accident did not occur if Orababa was not frighted, or it was well frightly operated.

4. Conclusion

The conviction in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, and if there is no evidence to form such a conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10096, Jun. 25, 2009). However, considering the above circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the existence of a defendant’s occupational negligence or causal relationship is proven without any reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, the judgment of innocence against the defendant under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act is rendered, and the summary of the judgment of innocence against the defendant under Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Act is decided as

Judges Lao Young-young

Judge Lee Jin

The images of each film box of a witness vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "witness vehicle") who has stopped on the left-hand left-hand turn shall be taken at 15 presses per second day.

As a result, G, which prepared the above appraisal report, analyzed the accident of this case by calculating time to the above press unit.

2) The time when the signal, etc. in the victim's proceeding direction was made with yellow signal is about 3 seconds, and such calculation is based on this, since it is about 3 seconds.

by way of calculation, when the injured party's Obaba has already been committed at a point where the injured party's Obaba exceeds about 110 meters from the point of accident, the injured party's progress.

It is deemed that the signal of the future has been changed to yellow signal.