logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.11.11 2019노2626
교통사고처리특례법위반(치사)
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (defendants) were unable to predict or avoid the fact that the victim was on the road due to a prior accident. Thus, there is no negligence, even if the defendant was negligent, it cannot be readily concluded that the victim died at the subsequent exercise of right by the defendant. Therefore, causation

B. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that, on the punishment of an unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 7 million) by the court below, the defendant is too unreasonable and unjust, while the prosecutor asserts that it is too uneasible and unjust.

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. Whether there was negligence on the part of the Defendant, the instant accident point is near the crosswalk where signal, etc. is installed, and the bus platform is installed in front of the accident site immediately before the accident site, so it is a village where pedestrians can expect frequent traffic, and the Defendant has already stopped 2 prices of prior vehicles prior to passing through the accident site, and the vehicle behind the Defendant’s vehicle has been driving on emergency lights, etc., and the vehicle behind the vehicle was driving on a sudden stop by the victim, and the Defendant was well aware of the shape, speed, etc. of the road by driving two to three times a week on the road where the accident occurred. In light of the above, the negligence on the occurrence of the accident can be fully recognized by the Defendant.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

B. The lower court determined whether there was a causal relationship between the exercise of the right after the Defendant caused and the death of the victim, and whether there was a causal relationship between the Defendant and the death of the victim, and the Defendant suffered extensive damage to the bones of head and brain of the victim, which were used on the road due to the preceding accident. This directly caused the death of the victim, and the shock level between the victim and the prior accident and the co-defendant A (the prior accident) of the lower court.

arrow