Duty of care of driving water at the time when traffic prohibition is imminent;

If the hours at the time of the accident are 23:45 when the passage of the vehicle is imminent, it is generally expected that the passage of the vehicle is low, and the passage of the vehicle is to be crossing the road. If the buses were stopped on the third line at the time of the accident, such as the time of the accident in this case, it would be possible to predict our experience that the bus's decline from the bus to the bus, or that there is a person who intends to cross the road.

Article 268 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 80No154 delivered on February 27, 1980

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the defendant, around October 24, 1979, 23:45, the accident of this case, when the defendant driven the taxi of Seoul 4ba 2107 and operated the first line of the road of the same 530 km-dong in the same 45 km-dong in the same speed as that of the defendant's vehicle, the victim drinking alcohol with a bus stopped on the 3rd line in the same direction, the defendant tried to cross the taxi without permission at a point two meters above the fire of the taxi driven by the defendant, and the defendant was driven by a Hand, but it did not reach the right side of the defendant's vehicle because it did not reach the point of time, the point of the accident of this case can be seen as a place where the victim could not stick to the right side of the vehicle without permission, and therefore, the defendant could not stick to the right side of the victim's vehicle at the time of the accident without permission.

However, according to the contents of the actual survey document on the site of the accident in question, if the defendant found the victim at a point two meters prior to the accident site, the line operated by the defendant was 17.8 meters in straight line from India to the point of the first line, and it is not difficult to see that there was no obstacle on the second line at that time. Thus, if it is difficult to see the correlation between the speed and the victim at the time of the original trial of the vehicle operated by the defendant, and the distance from the point of the accident to the collision with the vehicle operated by the defendant, the defendant could have discovered the victim who tried to cross the vehicle at a reasonable distance. As determined by the court below, if the defendant discovered the victim at a point of two meters prior to the accident site, it is difficult to view that the defendant was negligent in driving the vehicle at the point of the accident without due to the driver's duty of care at the time of the accident, such as the time when the accident occurred and the time of the accident occurred by the driver's vehicle at the time of the accident.

However, the court below judged that the defendant cannot be held liable for neglecting his duty of care on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and there is a misunderstanding of the legal principles on occupational negligence, and such sacratics were affected by the judgment.

It is reasonable to discuss this point.

Therefore, this appeal is with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)