beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The accident time of this case was at night without any lightlight, and at the time, the distance was not good due to gambling and smoke-free phenomena. The accident location of this case was a alleyd from the 4th line road to the 90th line, and the vehicle was parked in the alleyway at the time, and the vehicle was forced to turn to the right bypass.
In addition, the victim was able to find the victim because he/she was able to receive clothes in the color system, so the defendant could not find the victim.
Therefore, the defendant cannot be said to have violated duty of care.
B. The prosecutor (unfair punishment) of the lower court (three years of suspended sentence in December 200) is too unhued and unfair.
2. Determination
A. Even though the defendant did not have the duty of care to drive a vehicle in comparison with that that that person would normally have been on the road when driving the vehicle in advance, if the defendant could have discovered the victim who would normally have been on the road if he had fulfilled the duty of care for driving the vehicle and could have avoided it, the defendant is negligent on duty of care if he could not find it in advance because he could have discovered the victim who would normally have been on the road.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 91Do840 delivered on May 28, 1991, 2001; 2001Do505 delivered on December 11, 2001, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the following: (i) at the time of the instant accident, the instant accident occurred at night at night, and there was a phenomenon of gambling and smoke-related affairs at the time; (ii) the point of the instant accident occurred at the point of the instant accident at which the vehicle was parked on the right side of the said alley road at the 4th line and the place where the length of the alley is 90 square meters in length; (ii) the victim was under the influence of alcohol, and (iii) the Defendant was a place of the instant accident.