beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In full view of the following facts: (a) the victim of the grounds for appeal only speaks that he would handle the insurance from the defendant; (b) the defendant could not see the defendant; (c) the defendant merely reported only his vehicle only to the insurance company and did not dispatch his employee to the actual insurance company; and (d) the police officer who received the driver’s license from the defendant at the time stated that the defendant was a drinking state; (b) the court below acquitted the defendant of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (or the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) on the ground that the defendant had no intention to flee, although he could recognize
2. Determination
A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is a person engaging in driving a vehicle of CK5 vehicles.
On December 30, 2012, around 02:50 on December 30, 2012, the Defendant proceeded with one-lane of the shooting distance in front of the Namwon-dong at the front of the nuclear power station at the front of the nuclear power station at the front of the nuclear power station at the front of the nuclear power station.
There are many places where there is no signal apparatus, and snow at the time is difficult to string the length, so there was a duty of care to prevent accidents by driving a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle while driving a motor vehicle at the same time driving the motor vehicle with a duty of care by safely driving the motor vehicle while keeping the driving direction of the motor vehicle at the same time.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected the duty of Jeonju as well as due to the negligence on the part of the Defendant, who proceeded to the left-hand side from the right-hand side of the vehicle driven by the Defendant, received the victim D (the 52-year-year-old taxi)’s left-hand side-hand part of the said K5 vehicle as the front-hand part of the said K5 vehicle.
Ultimately, the Defendant’s occupational negligence requires approximately two weeks of treatment to the victim.