교통사고처리특례법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (No. 6 No. 5 of the evidence list) confirms the original image of the CP (CCTV; hereinafter “CCTV”) by direct verification, and measure the standard distance and time. Since the vehicle speed was 80 to 90 km at the time immediately after the Defendant’s India accident, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant driven the vehicle at a speed exceeding 20 km at a speed exceeding 81 km at that time at that time.
2. The lower court’s determination 1) determined that the CCTV reproduction (Evidence 5) submitted by a prosecutor was merely a video recorded in CCTV installed in a nearby the field, and the investigation report (Evidence 6 No. 5) was conducted by the National Institute of Scientific Research and Research to measure the distance between two points by arbitrarily setting two points on the basis of CCTV video recording at the base point. The Defendant’s vehicle calculated the time required for passing through the above two base point, and then calculated the said distance and the said time at the above time. Since the video images were reproduced by other photographing devices, it is difficult to determine the standards for the main line due to lack of maritime limits and the limitation of ethic quality, such as distorted images, and thus, it is difficult to measure the new image by a reliable numerical value. In light of the results of the appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Research and Research, the said investigation report alone alone, was operated beyond the limit of 20km.
It is difficult to conclude it.
The decision was determined.
2) In the appellate court’s judgment, the testimony of police officers F who prepared the investigation report and the inquiry of the facts about the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City branch office of the Road Traffic Authority, after investigating the accident scene after being investigated as evidence upon the request of the prosecutor.
A) The witness F, a police officer called up for the investigation of a traffic accident after the instant accident, is found to have shown the F’s testimony and the determination thereof. (1) The witness F, a police officer, in the appellate court, ① viewed the video recorded in CCTV installed in the road adjacent to the road immediately preceding the accident, and measured the standard distance.