Defendant

T. T. H. H. H. H.

Gwangju District Court Decision 2005Kadan20, 39 (Consolidated) Decided February 17, 2005

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that even if the causal relationship between the driver's occupational negligence of the defendant and the death of the victim is recognized, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the facts charged against the defendant, but it changed the facts charged against the defendant to the effect that the victim's death was caused by adding the defendant's negligence and the co-defendant's negligence in the first instance trial, and it changed to the contents of the indictment adding Article 30 of the Criminal Act to the applicable provisions of the Criminal Act and

Therefore, pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed ex officio, and the following decision is rendered after pleading.

1. Summary of the modified facts charged

The summary of the facts charged against the defendant changed in the trial of the court is that the defendant driving a motor vehicle (vehicle number 1 omitted) options : on December 4, 2004, the defendant, driving the said motor vehicle as his duties on December 12:25, 2004, and driving the said motor vehicle on a two-lane one-lane in front of the Hobrowon located in Gwangju Mine-dong, Gwangju, at a speed of 70 kilometers from the right side to the right side of the motor vehicle (vehicle number 2 omitted) for the victim non-indicted 1 (age 48) driver's (vehicle number 2 omitted) driver's (vehicle number 3 omitted), and the co-defendant of the first instance trial proceeds from the above side of the vehicle to the right side of the victim's collision with the above part of the vehicle by negligence of the non-indicted 1 (age 3 omitted), which caused the damage of the victim to the right side of the vehicle immediately after the collision with the defendant's second half of the above part of the vehicle due to the above collision with the victim's fault.

2. Determination

A. The co-principal of a crime of negligence is recognized in the case where two or more actors jointly commit an act of negligence in contact with each other (see Supreme Court Decisions 79Do1249, Aug. 21, 1979; 82Do781, Jun. 8, 1982; 82Do781, Aug. 23, 1996; 96Do1231, Nov. 28, 197; 97Do1740, Nov. 28, 1997; 200Do1740, etc.). The co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's co-defendant's negligence is not likely.

B. Therefore, we examine whether the defendant's negligence caused the death of the victim, and the defendant, immediately after the preceding accident of co-defendant in the first instance trial, shocked the back of the damaged vehicle due to the shock that the main set of the defendant's vehicle would be completely damaged. However, the defendant's statement by non-indicted 2, who examined the victim's body, is presumed to be damaged by two parts and chest damage, but the victim's private life is presumed to be damaged by two parts, and accurate private person is not known. The reason why the traffic accident in this case occurred, the time of the collision between the defendant's vehicle and the damaged vehicle, the collision between the victim's vehicle and the damaged vehicle, and the degree of shock are insufficient to recognize that the victim died due to the second collision caused by the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the case is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no evidence to prove the facts of the crime.

Judges Kim Jong-ok (Presiding Judge) Lee Woo