(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.01.31 2018노2725 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.01.31 2018노2725

교통사고처리특례법위반(치사)

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) is recognized that the Defendant could avoid the instant traffic accident if he was aware of the victim’s unauthorized crossing without permission, even though he could have sufficiently predicted the victim’s unauthorized crossing, by neglecting the duty of care on the basis of the prior margin.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the defendant's occupational negligence cannot be recognized is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

(B) According to the video CD, the instant traffic accident occurred at around 16:05:04 on the day of the commission of the crime, and at least 16:05:59, the Defendant was able to fully discover the form of the victim who enters the bus behind the opposite bus of the five seconds prior to the accident, or at least 16:06:02, the two seconds prior to the accident was able to sufficiently find the victim, and at least 16:06:02, the two seconds prior to the accident was able to find the victim, and at least 1:00, the occurrence of the collision did not occur if the collision did not occur, or even if the collision could not avoid the collision. Nevertheless, the Defendant found the victim later due to the spread of the finger, using the ne in the bus going on the opposite lane, and by the spread of the grandchildren.)

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the instant facts charged by adopting a verdict of innocence by multiple jurors via a participatory trial.

In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it cannot be deemed that the jury's verdict was erroneous, and even if the additional examination of the documentary records and video CDs (which was before the improvement of the quality and after the improvement of the quality), and the statement of the witness H of the trial party, it is not deemed that there is a sufficient and sufficient reason to clearly oppose the judgment of the court below and to understand it.

Therefore, the lower court cannot be deemed to have erred by mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument is accepted.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2014.10.02 2014노643

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.02 2015노1224

-대전지방법원 2019.06.20 2018노3411

-청주지방법원 제천지원 2020.02.06 2019고단410

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.06 2019노2997