In a case where it is not clear whether the victim died of one of the causes of the previous traffic accident and the subsequent traffic accident, the elements to recognize the causal relationship between the subsequent traffic accident and the death of the victim, and the burden of proof (=public prosecutor)

In order to recognize the causal relationship between the negligence of the person who caused the subsequent traffic accident and the death of the victim where it is not revealed that the cause of the prior traffic accident occurred and the subsequent traffic accident occurred, if the person who caused the subsequent traffic accident did not neglect his/her duty of care, the fact that the victim did not have reached the death should be proved, and the burden of proof is the prosecutor.

Article 17 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Do694 delivered on December 11, 1990 (Gong1991, 513) Supreme Court Decision 95Do2710 delivered on November 8, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3632)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 2005No486 Decided October 27, 2005

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where it is not revealed that the cause of the death of the victim was the cause of the previous traffic accident and the subsequent traffic accident occurred, in order to recognize the causal relationship between the negligence of the person who caused the subsequent traffic accident and the death of the victim, if the person who caused the subsequent traffic accident did not neglect his/her duty of care (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do694, Dec. 11, 1990; 95Do2710, Nov. 8, 1996). The burden of proof lies with the prosecutor.

The court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that there is no evidence to readily conclude that the defendant caused the death of the victim due to the defendant's negligence. In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no illegality

The remainder of the grounds of appeal disputing the judgment of the court below are not accepted, and all of them are not acceptable, as they are justified in the selection of evidence and fact-finding which belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence that affect the judgment of the court below. The grounds of appeal are dismissed.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)