logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.11.19 2020노119
교통사고처리특례법위반(치사)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that there is no causal link between the Defendant’s occupational negligence and the occurrence of the instant accident, even if the Defendant was negligent in driving down the boundary line installed in the middle of the first and the second lanes of the instant road at the time of the instant case.

In addition, it cannot be deemed that the defendant was negligent in business other than the above occupational negligence.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of judgment.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. On February 1, 2018, the Defendant: (a) driven a private taxi at B 5 (B) on February 1, 2018; (b) driven a two-lane road in front of D in Seopopopo City C (hereinafter “instant road”) at a speed of about 70km per hour from E to F-section.

At the time, the instant road was installed with a line indicating a boundary point in order to distinguish one lane from the two lanes, so in such a case, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely drive the road along which the lane is marked and prevent accidents in advance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and did not discover the Victim G (27 years of age) that was going on the middle line installed in the middle of the first lane and the second lane of the instant road (hereinafter “halfway boundary line”) and did not discover the victim G (27 years of age) who was going on the middle line at the front line of the proceeding direction, and used the front part of the said taxi in a place less than 46.8 meters and caused the victim to die on the spot due to damage to the two parts caused by the shock.

B. The lower court’s determination is based on the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, i.e., the main text of Article 14(2) of the Road Traffic Act.

arrow