beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In light of the background, location, predictability, etc. of the grounds for appeal of this case, it can be acknowledged that there is a proximate causal relationship between the violation of duty by the defendant driving more than 50 km a speed limit and the death of the victim.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant not guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.
2. Determination
A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the instant charges, on the grounds that the evidence presented by the prosecutor solely based on the following summary, is insufficient to deem that the Defendant could have discovered the victim and could avoid the collision if he had continued to observe the speed limit, and there was no other evidence to deem that there was a proximate causal link between the Defendant’s mistake proceeded in excess of the speed limit and the occurrence of a traffic accident.
① On the center line of the road along which the Defendant runs along the direction of the intersection, the center line of the road is installed with a fireproof length of 3.3 meters wide, and there are trees planted, so the Defendant’s view on the direction in which the victim proceeded is not good.
(2) Whether the Defendant was able to avoid a victim's misperception due to sudden stop or not shall be determined by calculating the range of stop, which is the sum of the official distance and the brake distance. Even when assumed that the restricted speed is observed, there is no evidence to presume the possibility of avoiding an accident by accurately calculating the brake distance of the Defendant’s vehicle with ABS installed.
③ On the basis of the data submitted by the defense counsel, the speed of the vehicle running at a speed of about 50km per hour is about 45.8m [= approximately 13.8m (applicable at the time of recognition) statistical dynamic distance, approximately 32m]. The distance from the anticipated point of detection of the victim to the point of occurrence of the instant accident is clear that the distance from the anticipated point of detection of the victim to the point of occurrence of the instant accident is shorter than the above stop distance.
B. The court below duly adopted the above circumstances acknowledged by the court below for the judgment of the court below.