(영문) 제주지방법원 2015.8.21.선고 2014고단1061 판결

On January 1, 2014, around 00:04, the Defendant, at the time of Seopopopopopopopo City, proceeded on the coast above the 200-meter radius from the surface of the sloping to the surface of the sloping at the entrance of the sloping line, at the right side of the sloping line, at the right side of the sloping line.

At the time, since it was difficult for a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle at night, there was a duty of care to reduce the speed and to prevent accidents by checking well the front, left, and left well.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and found the victim's front of the direction of the defendant's course at late later, and did not avoid this, and took the part of the victim's right head with the back wheels of the above passenger vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the death of the victim by training marcule by the above negligence.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Special Cases concerning Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Selection of Punishment: Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Settlement of Traffic Accidents;

§ 268. Selection of depository penalty

Reasons for judgment

1. As to whether the facts charged are acknowledged

A. Although the probative value of evidence is left to the discretion of the judge (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act), it must be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of the conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial is not likely to be a reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, it does not require that the extent of excluding all possible doubts, and it is not necessary to give rise to a suspicion without reasonable grounds, and it is not permissible to give rise to such suspicion beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The reasonable doubt in this context refers to a reasonable doubt as to the probability of facts that cannot be compatible with the facts in light of logical and empirical rules, rather than all questions and correspondences, and it refers to a reasonable doubt as to the probability of facts that are not compatible with the facts in light of logical and empirical rules. Accordingly, it is difficult to view that there is a reasonable doubt based on conceptual or abstract doubt in the process of finding facts in relation to the defendant, and thus, it cannot be viewed that there is a reasonable doubt that there is a possibility of a trial based on a reasonable doubt.

B. First, according to the above evidence, the victim can be found to have died of an accident involving the temporary bordering the head of the vehicle in question, and the vehicle likely to cause an accident in time among the above temporary bordering places is the vehicle in which the defendant's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle immediately before the accident is located (hereinafter referred to as "vehicle"), and the issue of this case is whether the vehicle causing the death of the victim can be recognized as having caused the death of the defendant's vehicle by the above method. Under this premise, the main circumstances supporting the facts charged are as follows:

1. ① As a result of the analysis of black image of the instant accident, from 00:00 to 00:01:59 on January 1, 2014, the date and time of the instant accident, to 00:01:0,01:59, the victim sent out the area surrounding the accident site. At around 00:03:11, the rear, etc., of the front vehicle, the front vehicle passed the straight line with the place where the accident occurred without string the upper part of the vehicle. At around 00:04:57, the vehicle driven by the Defendant in the left part of the left part while passing through the place where the accident occurred.

② The Defendant’s back wheel wheel of the front front of the vehicle driven by the Defendant was detected with a view to be the victim’s hair and the lower bottom of the two skins. The above wheel point is common sense to view that the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle used the victim’s hair while driving the home while driving the victim’s head, and applied the wheelchairs inside the wheelchairs as the other vehicle continued to run. Unless it is premised on the premise that the victim’s scam was scattered on the road surface due to the shock of the victim’s scambling of the victim, deeming that the scam on the road was located after the passage of the accident site of the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle, and that the scambling point and the scambling point of the victim’s head on the road immediately after the accident as seen below, but the above scambling point in the front part of the vehicle could have been found, and thus, the Defendant returned to the center and the front part of the road.

③ As a result of the autopsy, the victim died due to the two parts of the two parts of the two parts of the other parts of the body, such as a stroke and stroke, and the stroke, the left side of the body and the right side of the body of the victim. Each stroke, stroke, the right side and the left side side of the victim was observed. This is a form of damage caused by a vehicle’s one-time station station. The left hand and the right side hand of the vehicle are in the form of damage caused by the stroke, the stroke, the stroke, the 1-2 side stroke, and the stroke, the stroke and other damaged parts of the body, other than the stroke, the stroke and other damaged parts of the body, and even if the Defendant’s operation of the vehicle as above changed the two parts to the front and rear wheels of the vehicle, it is also consistent with the results and the back wheels of the vehicle.

④ On the road surface immediately after an accident, a victim’s scam and hair are scambling on the road surface, and the victim is found to have scam the head from a point in front of the scam on the scam to the center line about about two-thirds of the two-thirds of the lanes, moving the head from the point in front of the scambling line to the center line. The victim’s condition is consistent with the movement of the driver’s vehicle, such as the vehicle used by the defendant to move the hand to the left side of the city, when the vehicle used to move the hand to the right side of the city.

⑤ As shown in the on-site inspection protocol, if the previous vehicle is facing another person, the latter, etc. will be salvaging the upper and lower side. Since the previous vehicle is driving along the lane, if the victim was salved, then the latter, etc., if the victim was salved with the upper and lower side, then the latter must be adhered to the black box. However, if the victim died due to an accident involving the head of the vehicle once. If the previous vehicle is salved with the victim, the victim shall be placed two times with the front and rear wheels in consideration of the progress of the previous vehicle, and the body, etc. of the victim, other than the head of the victim, should be left together. The form of damage to the victim is different.

(6) On January 1, 2014, the time at which a rescue unit arrived at is presumed to have been dead at the time when considering the state of the victim at the time, and at the time, at the time, at the time, the vehicle is presumed to have been dead. Even when the vehicle is her head, the vehicle may not be asked on the vehicle where the vehicle’s running speed is left by the sponser in the two sides and the vehicle’s flying direction is rapid or the vehicle’s flying direction is not toward the vehicle. In addition, death caused by a heat in cerebrovascular seems to be close to the death, i.e., the victim would be able to die without any sound or other means.

C. According to the entirety of the probative value of the evidence supporting the above facts of crime, it is determined that the facts of crime have been proven to the extent that it does not have any reasonable mind, i.e., the defendant may not be the criminal.

D. Meanwhile, while the previous vehicle passed through a similar time zone, there is considerable meaningful evidence or circumstance supporting the possibility that the defendant would not cross the victim as a vehicle in this case, and it cannot be deemed that there is considerable evidence or circumstance supporting the possibility that the victim would not cross the victim as a vehicle. Moreover, considering the situation in which the victim takes possession of almost one-way line depending on the direction of the road driving, the victim's body is driving along the vehicle along the lane while the body of the victim passes through the vehicle as it is, it is difficult for the victim to go through the vehicle and her head only, and even if it appears difficult for the victim to go through the vehicle and immediately after the accident, there is no reasonable ground for free evaluation of evidence beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. As to sentencing

The Defendant denies the facts constituting the instant accident from the investigative agency to the instant court. However, according to the evidence as seen earlier, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant caused the instant accident by the instant accident, not only caused the death of the victim, but also caused the victim’s bereaved family members by the said accident, and even if the victim’s bereaved family members suffered considerable pain, it is inevitable that the Defendant’s sentence is superior to the Defendant’s sentence. At the same time, taking into account the following sentencing guidelines, the Defendant’s punishment should be determined by taking into account the background of the accident, the situation after the accident, the situation after the accident, the Defendant’s occupation, age, personality and conduct, health status, family relationship, and taking into account the Defendant’s status, etc., and the statutory detention should not be granted.

[Sentencing Criteria]

In general traffic accident case(the range of recommending punishment: April or October) mitigation area (the range of recommending punishment): In case where there is considerable negligence for the occurrence of traffic accident or the expansion of damage even for the victim, the victim was under the influence of alcohol and under the influence of the road.

The acquittal portion

1. Facts charged;

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of a self-purd motor vehicle.

Ultimately, even though the above negligence led to the death of a victim by training mar on January 1, 2014, the Defendant immediately stopped and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victim.

2. Determination

A. "A case where a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" means a case where the driver of an accident runs away from the accident site before performing his/her duty under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, although he/she knew of the fact that the victim was killed or injured, resulting in a situation where the identity of the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed. In such a case, the purpose of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is to ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic risks and obstacles that occur on the road. In such a case, the measures to be withdrawn by the driver should be appropriately taken according to the specific circumstances, such as the content and degree of the accident, to the extent that the degree of the damage is ordinarily required in light of a sound form, and thus, it is also necessary to reveal the identity of the driver of the accident, such as the victim or police (see, etc.).

B. According to the health stand, the above evidence and the suspect examination protocol of the defendant, and the manual report of the prosecution (the investigation record 45, 49 pages). ① The defendant discovered that the victim was available at the scene of the accident, sent the victim to the left side, and immediately moved back to the right side, and stopped at about 100 meters, as they are. ② The amount of the vehicle left the place of the accident after the driver's vehicle was discovered from the victim, and stopped at around 00:07 on the day when the victim was stopped and stopped, ③ The defendant also asked the police officer to the effect that "the person is available to the front box at around 00:08 and about 00:14 on the day," ④ The police officer's name and treatment of the victim, sent the vehicle to the hospital, ⑤ The police officer should be informed of the fact that the defendant was sent to the police officer's personal information about the victim, ⑤ The police officer's arrival of the vehicle after the accident and the police officer's personal information about the accident.

The above facts are acknowledged. ① The Defendant reported directly to the police box for about four minutes after the time of the accident. ② The Defendant appears to go to a place other than the scene of the accident. ② The Defendant sent a vehicle to the police box after receiving the report, ② The Defendant sent the scene of the accident at around 00:14 on the same day so that the police officer could promptly arrive at the scene of the accident. ③ The Defendant did not directly rescue the victim but sent the victim to the hospital by the police officer and the first aid unit; ④ the Defendant was sent to the police officer, ④ the Defendant was informed of personal information to the police officer, and the Defendant was able to return home. ⑤ The Defendant recognized the scene of the accident by driving the vehicle at the time, and it was difficult for the police officer to find that the vehicle was parked at the scene of the accident, and even if the Defendant stopped the vehicle at the distance, it can be seen that the Defendant could not have been aware of the situation at the time of the accident, such as the degree of cancellation of the vehicle at the scene, and the Defendant could not directly check the situation of the accident at the scene.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Transport Personnel in the Relationship related to this crime,

Judges

Kim Jong-min

Note tin

1) Although there was no information that the left-hand side of the Defendant’s driving vehicle was shaking, the Defendant changed his hand to the left-hand side rapidly, and again the right-hand side.

Since it has returned to Korea, it is difficult to have a big meaning on the defendant's vehicle.

2) In the case of a preceding vehicle, a prior vehicle passed through the place of the accident without any particular special exception, with respect to the state of the victim at that time.

In light of the fact that there is an interval of about 1 minute 40 seconds between the preceding vehicle and the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle, the preceding vehicle is in the accident scene.

At the time of passing a lawsuit, the defendant vehicle reaches the place where the accident occurred, when the victim gets at the edge of the road or was seated at the edge of the road.

In light of the fact that the front and the rear of the front vehicle, etc. have been divingd, the driver of the preceding vehicle as the driver of the preceding vehicle shall be adjacent to the lane.

에 있는 피해자를 발견하고 놀라 멈칫 하였을 개연성 또한 큰 것으로 보인다.

참조조문

-특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제5조의3 제1항

참조판례