2018 Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Death or Injury)

1. A;

Residence

Reference domicile

2. B

Residence

Reference domicile

Park Jong-il (Lawsuits) and Park Jong-ok (Public Trial)

Attorney Park Do-young

August 17, 2018

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months.

However, with respect to Defendant A, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive. Defendant B shall be acquitted.

The summary of the judgment of innocence against Defendant B shall be published.

Criminal facts

Defendant A is a person engaged in driving a rocketing taxi in Seoul000.

Defendant A driven on April 9, 2017: around 27: Around 2017, Defendant A tried to drive the said car and drive three lanes near 1134 lanes, as Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, at the speed of about 89km from the 1134-lanes to the long distance of street.

The location is a section with a speed of 60km per hour, and at the time, the level of rain (Cumulative amount of 0.5m.) was milched, so in such a case, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by safely driving the motor vehicle at a speed of 20% reduction of the highest speed as well as the right and the right of the front and the right.

Nevertheless, Defendant A neglected his/her negligence in front of the front road and proceeded with the victim C who was crossing the road without permission from the left side of the vehicle in the direction of Defendant A to the right side of the road at a speed exceeding 48 km speed per hour, and by negligence going beyond 89 km speed, Defendant A found the victim C, who was going to the right side of the road from the left side of the road in the direction of Defendant A, and was immediately driven, but Defendant A's front part of the vehicle did not avoid, and caused the victim to go beyond two-lanes.

In addition, while driving a car in K5-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-

After all, Defendant A caused the victim to die on the same day by the above occupational negligence: around 24, at the same day, at the 150 Maddong heart hospital in Gangdong-gu Seoul, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, Defendant A caused the death of the victim by the low blood shock.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. A death diagnosis report or an appraisal request report (a autopsy report and a list of evidence Nos. 18);

1. Operational record analysis (Seoul00), traffic accident analysis replys, and results of meteorological data inquiry;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs related to accidents (Evidence No. 24), images related to accidents, and photographs CDs (Evidence List No. 25);

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and Article 268 (Selection of Treasury Punishment)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating Conditions among the Reasons for Sentencing)

1. The grounds for sentencing: The scope of applicable sentences by law: Imprisonment without prison labor for not more than five years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Type] Traffic Crime Group, General Traffic Accidents and Type 2 (Death or Injury of Traffic Accidents)

[Specially Neither Person nor Person or Person or Person or Person or Person or Person or Person or Person or Person or Person or Person or Person or Person or Person or Person or Person or Person or

[General Aggravation] Aggravations: Cases falling under the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

Reduction element: Subscription to motor vehicle comprehensive insurance, serious reflect

[Scope of Recommendation] Reduction Area: 2 months to 1 year (in the case of the existence of more than two special mitigation factors, the lower limit of the sentence range recommended in the sentencing guidelines shall be mitigated to 1/2) of the credit cooperative.

【Suspension of Execution】

-The affirmative reasons for the occurrence of a traffic accident, if there is a substantial fault on the part of the victim, not punishable.

-The negative reasons: Death accident;

- positive reasons for general participation: Serious reflect, absence of more than a stay of execution, comprehensive motor vehicle insurance - negative general participation reasons: Cases falling under the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents;

3. Determination of sentence;

【Unfavorable Circumstances】

○ The negligent result of the Defendant’s fault that caused the death of the injured party.

○ Although there is a substantial negligence on the occurrence of a traffic accident even for the victim who illegally crossed the road, the defendant is also negligent on the part of the victim who driven the road in excess of the restricted speed while neglecting the duty of exponing

【Beneficial Conditions】

○ The defendant recognized his mistake and is in profoundly against his nature.

○ It is determined that the fault of the victim crossing the road without permission has contributed significantly to the occurrence of the instant traffic accident.

○ The Defendant’s vehicles are covered by the comprehensive automobile insurance and agreed with the bereaved family members of the deceased (the vehicles driven by the Defendant are subscribed to the National Private Taxi Mutual Aid Association, the vehicles driven by the Defendant are covered by the Comprehensive Automobile Insurance for Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance, and the said Mutual Aid Association and the Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance provide the bereaved family members with KRW 190,000,000,000 for the victim’s compensation, etc.).

○ There is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine during that period.

In addition to the above circumstances, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, result of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be determined as per the disposition, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, which form the conditions for sentencing as revealed in the course of the case and the trial.

Part of not guilty (the part on Defendant B)

1. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant B is a person who is engaged in driving a car at k5,000 K5.

Defendant B driven on April 9, 2017: around 27: Around 27, 2017, Defendant B tried to drive the said car and drive the two lanes between the five lanes near 1134 lanes, as Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, at the speed of about 46.8 km from the tent of the street.

At the time, it was difficult to keep the surrounding area due to a new wall and there was milched surface, so in such a case, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by accurately operating the boom and the left and right of the driver of the motor vehicle and operating the steering boat and the brake system in a safe manner.

Nevertheless, Defendant B neglected this and neglected to cross without permission as described in the facts constituting a crime in the preceding bank due to negligence, which led the victim to approximately 10 meters of the victim's body while driving the vehicle in front of the above K5 vehicle and leading the victim with the top of the victim's body in front of the driver's and left front of the vehicle.

Ultimately, as the above occupational negligence and the criminal facts recorded in the judgment of Defendant B are concurrently involved in the same day, the victim caused the death of the victim from the low-blood shock shock by the cryp cryp fry at the Damdong Hospital located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 150 on the same day.

2. Summary of the defendant B and his defense counsel

The Defendant was unable to discover in advance the victim, who was used on the road due to the preceding accident, or could not be predicted. Since the instant accident occurred even though he fulfilled his duty of care at the time of the instant accident, the Defendant was not negligent in the occurrence of the instant accident.

3. Determination

A. A driver of a motor vehicle can not be said to have a duty of care to the extent that he/she can avoid the result in preparation for a situation that could normally be predicted, and it can not be said that he/she has a duty of care to anticipate and prepare for an occurrence of an exceptional situation that is difficult to expect (Supreme Court Decision 1985.7.)

9. See Supreme Court Decision 85Do833, Feb. 2, 199

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the victim is the victim on April 9, 2017.

02 : 27경 서울 강동구 천호대로 1134 부근 왕복 10차선의 도로를 무단 횡단하다가 위 도로 3차로를 진행하던 A이 운전하는 택시에 충격당하여 그 충격으로 위 도로 2차로로 튕겨져 나가 위 2차로상으로 넘어졌고, 그 후 위 도로의 2차로를 진행하던 피고인이 도로상에 쓰러져있던 피해자를 뒤늦게 발견하고 급제동하였으나 미처 피하지 못하고 피고인 운전 차량으로 피해자를 역과한 사실은 인정된다 .

However, according to the following circumstances revealed by the court's duly adopted and investigated evidence, ① the place where the traffic accident in this case occurred was considerably wide to two lanes from among the 10-lane roads, and the place where the crosswalk was installed was 27 minutes at the time of the occurrence of the traffic accident. At the time of the accident, the victim was able to use the vehicle on the two-lane road without the driver's duty of care, and it was difficult to expect the pedestrian to cross or use the vehicle on the road without the driver's permission, and ② the victim was using the vehicle on the road without the driver's duty of care, and it was difficult to find the vehicle at the time of the accident more than the two-lane road due to the occurrence of the accident, and there was no need for the victim to use the vehicle on the road without the driver's duty of care, and thus, it was difficult to see that the victim was using the vehicle on the road without the driver's speed of the accident at least 6% prior to the accident.

4. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged against Defendant B constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, the court rendered a judgment of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and pursuant to Article 58(2)

It is so decided as per Disposition by publicly announcing the summary of the judgment of innocence.

Judges Cho Dong-dong