beta
Text
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) In the instant traffic accident claiming misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the instant traffic accident occurred in the downcoming a sloped speech, followed by a scamber in S. At the time of the instant accident, the snow was in ice, and the Defendant was in a state of ice, and the snow was accumulated at the starting point of the down of the decline and the surface was found to have been iced, and even brashed to see that the brake was found to have been ice. The instant traffic accident began with the stop of the vehicle and became in a state of being unable to control the vehicle.
As can be seen, the Defendant got off about 460 meters of the way to stop under control, and reached the bend path by the Defendant. Since the road on which the Defendant passed is low on the left side, which is a road where the victim D (hereinafter “victim”) is driving on, and is a very right slope structure, the road that is the right side, the Defendant’s vehicle is faced with the victim’s vehicle by getting out of the road along which the victim is driving on the center line, and the downwards the center line, and the Defendant did not commit any negligence on the occurrence of the instant traffic accident.
In addition, it is difficult to regard it as "when the center line of a road is invadedd by violating the provisions of Article 13 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents" under the former part of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents because it is inevitable for the defendant to be able to be able to control due to external conditions, such as weather conditions, surface status, road structure, etc., such an accident is caused by the victim's injury by the occurrence of the instant traffic accident in violation of the duty of care. However, the court below erred by recognizing it as falling under the former part of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.
2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 4 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. The defendant's mistake and mistake of facts;