In a case where the defendant, who is a taxi driver, got off the body part of the victim's body which was cut down in the narrow sloping length of a narrow sloping road between the houses concentrated in the heart and was in the right angle of a narrow sloping road, leading to death with the wheels of the vehicle and escaped, the case holding that the judgment below which acquitted the defendant, erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the elements of the crime of occupational death and death in the course of the crime

In a case where the defendant, who is a taxi driver, got off the body part of the victim's body in the narrow sloping length between the houses densely concentrated in the night and was living in the decline of the narrow sloping road, leading to the death in the sloping road, and escaped, the case holding that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the elements of the crime of death by occupational negligence in the judgment below which acquitted the defendant, based on the time of the accident and the road situation at the time of the accident, etc., although the defendant, who was engaged in driving a motor vehicle, had a duty of care to prevent the accident by reducing the speed higher than ordinary, closely driving the right and the right at the time of the accident, was negligent, and caused the accident due to the failure to discover the victim who was living on the front sloping road while driving without reducing the speed.

Article 268 of the Criminal Act and Article 5-3 (1) 1 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Sang-hoon

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2010No1070 decided December 7, 2010

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on March 26, 2010, the court below found that the defendant intentionally fell out of the above floor of the taxi (vehicle number omitted) and did not sit on the alleyway, but caused the victim's death on the sloping side with the wheels of the taxi of this case. The defendant, at that time, was driving the taxi of this case and entered the alleyway rapidly to the degree of 90∑ or right-hand left-hand turn at the point of this case. The defendant's approach to the above alley road is a highly sloped area with a gradient of about 9.6∑, and since the defendant was unable to see the left-hand left-hand side of the above alley road due to the defendant's failure to see that there was a narrow range of 4.8m of the sloping on the left-hand side of the above sloping road, the defendant left-hand side of the sloping road of this case.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept.

According to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, at the night of 00:49 at the time of the accident, the accident location of this case was at a location where a narrow alley lengthr road where a house was concentrated was opened up in a right angle, and the width of the road is likely to lead to the decline of the sloping road, and the passage of the driver or obstacles was narrow, and there was no vehicle going through in the opposite direction, and it was possible to sufficiently confirm the course solely with the head of the taxi in this case. In such a case, the defendant who is a driver of this case was at the time of the accident, because he did not neglect his duty of care to prevent the accident, even though he did not neglect his duty of care and did not lead to the occurrence of the accident on the road where he did not go through the sloping road at the time of the accident.

Ultimately, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the elements of a crime of occupational injury and death, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)