beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the video image of video recording in the event of a misunderstanding of facts (crimeless part), the victims were crossinged after a warning signal of pedestrians in the crosswalk, the victims were at the time of entering the vehicle line operated by the Defendant, and as at the time of entering the vehicle line operated by the Defendant, the Defendant was at the time of securing the victim’s appearance in the front of the road. The location of the accident is the crosswalk, which is a vehicle on the crosswalk, and it was anticipated to some extent that there was a pedestrian driving ahead of the unauthorized crossing. In light of the above, the Defendant could fully recognize the occupational negligence that the Defendant failed to perform his/her duty at the front of the road.
Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the premise that the defendant is not found to be negligent in business. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.
B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (five million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below (not guilty) states that "the driver of a vehicle who stops on the opposite side of the crosswalk while the signal on the crosswalk is red, it is inevitable to believe that the pedestrian will not collapse, and it is not possible to expect that the pedestrian will not collapse (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do2077 delivered on February 23, 1993)" is obliged to perform his duty of care in light of the legal principles that "the driver of the vehicle is obliged to run the vehicle in front of the vehicle that stops on the opposite side of the direction of the defendant's proceeding," and in light of the video image of CCTV on the face of the accident, investigation report (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do2077 delivered on February 23, 193, 199) and the fact that the traffic accident in this case occurred can be recognized by the victims in violation of the pedestrian signal, and through the vehicle stopped on the opposite side of the direction of the defendant's proceeding.