2010 Highest 1975 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Doing Vehicles)

OO***************),**

The residence omitted.

Place of Registration omitted

Kim Yong-American

Law Firm* Attorney in charge***

Attorney***

May 18, 2011

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal History Office

The Defendant is******** a passenger of passenger capacity*

around 20:20 on October 14, 2010, the Defendant continued the front road of the Seoggu Seogdong-gu Seogdong-gu Seogyeonggyeong-gu, Seogdong-gu, Daegu, with a new four-distance outflow from the Seogyeong-gu, Seongbuk-gu.

In such cases, drivers engaged in driving duties have a duty of care to live well on the front side and the left side and to accurately operate the steering and brake system.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and did not discover the victim A (ma, 60 years old) who is under the influence of alcohol in front of the proceeding direction due to negligence, and escaped without necessary measures, such as aiding the victim's body due to the front driver part of the vehicle **** immediately stopping the vehicle and providing relief to the victim, etc., and caused the victim to die from the two frameworks, etc. in that place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statements of the defendant in the first protocol of trial;

1. Some of the interrogation records of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Part of the protocol of interrogation of the police suspect against the defendant 1.*********************************************************************

1. Investigation report (including photographs of neighboring workers, and photographs A of dials);

1. 112. List of reported cases;

1. A corpse of corpse;

1. Investigation report (including photographs of the reporter);

1. A criminal investigation report (other party to the reporting person);

1. He/she shall include a photograph of the investigation report (in-depth investigation);

1. Photographs of articles left;

1. Street photographs of a road;

1. Requests for appraisal and inspection by a State;

1. Investigation reports;

1. A report on investigation (vehicle photographs of the vehicle under investigation);

1. Investigation report (on-site verification photographs);

1. Requests for appraisal and inspection by a State;

1. A comprehensive inquiry report;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report (Attachment to a report on the investigation of a criminal case in charge), DNA appraisal and analysis report;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Judgment on the defendant's argument under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act

A. The defendant's negligence on the occurrence of the accident of this case

The Defendant asserts that the point of the instant accident is a road across Daegu area, which is a ten-lane wide-lane road, and that the time of the instant accident was when the traffic volume was considerably high due to the outing vehicle around 20:20 p.m., so the Defendant cannot at all expect that the person under the duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the instant accident, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendant violated the duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the instant accident.

The term "motor vehicle driver who commits a crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act due to the transportation of the motor vehicle" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes means a person who causes death or injury to another person due to occupational negligence or gross negligence caused by the transportation of the motor vehicle, and is not included in the driver involved in the accident who does not have been negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do3358, Dec. 8, 1999). Thus, in order to recognize that the accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's breach of his duty of care due to the defendant's breach of duty of care, it should be acknowledged that the defendant could find the victim who was under way on the road if he fulfilled his duty of care and could avoid driving the victim.

Therefore, even if the signal on the crosswalk is sent to the pedestrian stop and the progress of the vehicle, there is always a possibility that people or obstacles may be displayed on the road, and if the accident area is a relatively wide range of passage between the vehicle and the person, there is a common possibility that pedestrians crossing the road without permission or other unexpected situations may occur without disregarding the traffic signal. If a person driving a motor vehicle is able to easily anticipate it, the driver of the motor vehicle passing through the crosswalk has a duty of care to drive the motor vehicle by taking into account whether there is a pedestrian, etc. entering the crosswalk on the left and right, whether there is a pedestrian, etc. who has yet to go beyond the crosswalk completely, whether there is any other obstacle or not.

이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 이 사건이 야간에 발생하였고, 이 사건 사고가 발생한 곳이 편도 5차로의 넓은 도로이며, 피해자가 술에 만취하여 위 도로의 3차로에 누워있었던 사실이 인정되나, 앞서 든 증거 및 이 사건 심리결과 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 이 사건 도로는 시야의 장애가 전혀 없는 곳이고, 당시 도로가에 가로등이 켜져 있었으며 피고인도 *** 차량의 전조등을 켜고 운전하고 있었던 것으로 보여 피해자가 도로위에 누워있는 것이 보이지 않을 만큼 어둡지는 않았던 것으로 보이는 점(피고인의 * 차량 뒤를 따라 진행하던 B은 피고인이 피해자를 충격할 당시 차량이 뒤뚱거렸으며 그 순간 에쿠스 차량 옆으로 나뭇조각 같은 파편이 튀는 것을 보았다는 취지로 진술하고 있으며, B, C 등은 피해자가 도로에 누워있는 것을 목격하고 경찰서 등에 신고하였다), 이 사건 도로 양쪽으로 아파트 단지와 주택가, 병원 등이 위치하고 있고, 사고 지점인 횡단보도 인근에는 성서주공 1단지로 들어가는 도로가 있어 이 사건 도로에 사람의 통행이 빈번하리라는 것을 쉽게 예측할 수 있었던 점, 피고인이 당시 시속 40 내지 50㎞의 속력으로 진행하던 중 피고인의 차량 약 57.9m 전방에서 검은 물체를 발견하였다고 진술하고 있는 점 등을 종합하면, 만일 피고인이 진로의 전방 및 좌우를 잘 살펴 진로의 안전을 확인하면서 진행하였더라면, 피해자가 횡단보도 부분에 누워있는 것을 미리 발견하고 속도를 줄여 정차하거나 다른 차로로 피양하여 진행할 수 있었을 것으로 보이거나, 적어도 피해자를 역과 하는 사태에까지는 이르지 않았을 것으로 보인다.

In addition, the Defendant asserted that the vehicle that was going before the Defendant was found to have been late due to the wind to replace the sudden bus line at the time of the accident, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and as a driver of a vehicle that is going behind the vehicle ahead of it, the driver of the vehicle that is going behind the vehicle ahead of it has a duty of care to maintain the safety distance with the vehicle ahead of it so that even if there is any sudden driving or accident caused by the vehicle ahead of it, it does not cause any chain, and to ensure the safety of the course by maintaining the sufficient safety distance with the vehicle ahead of it, and by checking it well (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do505, Dec. 11, 201). Thus, the Defendant did not neglect the duty of care to ensure the safety of the vehicle ahead of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, and even if he did not have been negligent in finding another vehicle ahead of the accident at the time of the accident, the Defendant did not neglect the safety distance from the vehicle ahead of it.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above assertion that the defendant was not at fault of violating duty as a driver in relation to the accident of this case, or was a force majeure.

B. The assertion that there is no criminal intent of escape

At the time of shock with the victim, the defendant saw that he was fluent by the upper part of the upper part of the body, and did not recognize that he had shocked the body of the tools, and that he did not have any criminal intent to escape.

특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제5조의3 제1항 소정의 '피해자를 구호하는 등 도로교통법 제50조 제1항의 규정에 의한 조치를 취하지 아니하고 도주한 때'라 함은 사고운전자가 사고로 인하여 피해자가 사상을 당한 사실을 인식하였음에도 불구하고 피해자를 구호하는 등 도로교통법 제50조 제1항에 규정된 의무를 이행하기 이전에 사고현장을 이탈하여 사고를 낸 자가 누구인지 확정될 수 없는 상태를 초래하는 경우를 말하고, 여기에서 말하는 사고로 인하여 피해자가 사상을 당한 사실에 대한 인식의 정도는 반드시 확정적임을 요하지 아니하고 미필적으로라도 인식하면 족한바, 사고운전자가 사고 직후 차에서 내려 직접 확인하였더라면 쉽게 사고사실을 확인할 수 있었는데도 그러한 조치를 취하지 아니한 채 별일 아닌 것으로 알고 그대로 사고현장을 이탈하였다면 사고운전자에게는 미필적으로라도 사고의 발생사실을 알고 도주할 의사가 있었다고 볼 것이다(대법원 2004. 12. 9. 선고 2004도6485 판결 등 참조).이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 앞서 든 증거 및 이 사건 심리결과 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 이 사건 사고 지점은 대구지역을 관통하는 편도 5차로의 평탄한 아스팔트 도로이고, 피해자는 상당한 체격을 가지고 있는 남성이었으며, 피고인도 당시 물체를 충격하는 느낌이 들었다고 진술하고 있는 점, 피고인의 차량을 뒤따라 진행하던 B이 피고인의 차량이 뒤뚱거리는 것을 보았으며 그 후 피고인이 브레이크를 밟았다가 다시 진행하였다고 진술하고 있는 점, 피해자를 역과한 충격으로 피고인의 차량 엔진 하단덮개 부분, 차량하부 덮개 부분 등이 파손된 점 등에 비추어보면 역과 당시 차체의 흔들림이나 충격이 상당하였을 것으로 보이고, 이에 더하여 공구상자를 충격한 경우와 사람을 역과한 경우는 그 충격 당시의 느낌이 확연히 다를 것임에도 이를 단순히 공구상자 등으로 오인하였다는 것은 쉽게 납득하기 어려운 점 등을 종합하면, 피고인은 자신의 차량으로 역과한 것이 사람인 점을 알았거나 적어도 사람일 수 있다고 생각할 수 있었을 것으로 보이고, 그렇다면 당연히 그 자리에 정차하여 자신이 역과한 것이 무엇인지 확인하였어야 할 것임에도 피고인이 그와 같은 조치를 취함이 없이 그대로 그 자리를 떠난 것은 피고인에게 미필적으로라도 사람을 역과한 사실을 알고 도주할 의사가 있었다고 인정할 수 있다.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

Although the result of sentencing is very important in the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, the execution of imprisonment shall be suspended in consideration of the following factors: (a) the occurrence of the instant traffic accident appears to have been significantly affected by the victim’s negligence occurring on the road at night; (b) the Defendant paid a considerable amount to the bereaved family members of the victim; (c) the Defendant has agreed to pay a reasonable amount to the bereaved family members of the victim; (d) the instant sea-related vehicle is covered by a comprehensive insurance; and (e) the Defendant has faithfully worked for about thirty

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Seo-young