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

A person shall be appointed.

○○ Kim (Institution of Prosecution), ○○ (Trial)

Attorney Jeong-○ (Korean Central Election)

October 4, 2018

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of a cargo vehicle in Seoul ○○○○○○○○○○○.

On March 7, 2018: around 20 20, the Defendant got to proceed at a non-speed speed along the three-laned road of the ‘Flodar' Contracting State in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Seoul, 225, and one-lane from the service distance to the long-distance of the long-distance.

However, there was an intersection installed a crosswalk in the front of the road and a pedestrian stop signal, but many people stand on the left side of the road using the crosswalk, and thus, there was a duty of care to check whether a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle temporarily stops on the front side and the left side, and to accurately manipulate the steering direction and the brake system of the motor vehicle to prevent accidents in advance.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and found the victim B to the left-hand side by using the crosswalk on the pedestrian stop signal as it is, but the defendant did not keep the victim's head in front of the defendant's vehicle, which led the victim to go beyond the road by shocking the victim's head.

Ultimately, around 11, the Defendant caused the death of the Materne under the Materne under Materne while being receiving medical treatment at the Hanyang University Hospital located in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seoul, on March 7, 2018 due to the foregoing occupational negligence.

2. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

A driver of a motor vehicle is not able to fulfill his duty of care to avoid the result in preparation for an occurrence of an occurrence of an occurrence of an exceptional situation which is not foreseeablely (Supreme Court Decision 85Do833 delivered on July 9, 1985).

B. Determination

According to the records of this case, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① The place where the instant accident occurred is a three-lane road, and the signal signal was installed at the scene of the accident, and the immediately preceding Defendant was driving along one lane. ② The Defendant was parked in the front of the crosswalk until the time when the Defendant walked about 100 meters in front of the crosswalk, and there was no vehicle parked in front of the crosswalk. ③ The Defendant’s vehicle stopped at a point above the crosswalk, about 80 meters in front of the crosswalk, and there was no vehicle parked. ③ The Defendant’s vehicle stopped in the front of the crosswalk. ④ At that time, the Defendant’s vehicle stopped in the blue signal at a speed of about 39 km. ⑤ The Defendant’s vehicle signal was opened in the blue signal at the speed of 2nd, and the pedestrian traffic signal was opened in front of the road without permission by the Defendant, and the vehicle stopped in front of the road in front of the road without permission by the Defendant, and the vehicle stopped in front of the road in front of the road in front of the road in front of the front direction.

In addition to these facts, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case:

In other words, pedestrians should walk along the crosswalks, and they should not cross the road during the vehicle driving signals. The defendant, who had driven one lane at the time, has already turned on the vehicle driving signal, and all the unauthorized crossings in the front side entered the lane opposite to the width of the defendant vehicle. The defendant seems to have fulfilled his duty of care to prevent accidents to the unauthorized crossings recognized by himself. On the other hand, the time of the accident is when the vehicle driving signal has passed, it seems difficult for the defendant to predict that additional unauthorized crossings would be more than the above unauthorized crossings than the above unauthorized crossings, and even if the defendant found the victim without permission, it seems unreasonable to impose a duty of care to check whether there is any more unauthorized crossings by the method of temporarily stopping on the crosswalks even after the vehicle driving signal on the crosswalks, and even if the defendant found the victim without permission, it appears that there was no conflict between the time and the operating distance.

In light of the above legal principles, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant caused the instant accident by violating the duty of care required for drivers engaged in driving service, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the defendant is published pursuant to

Judges Kim Jae-sik