beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: inasmuch as the Defendant already violated the duty to protect pedestrians by stopping a taxi in part of the crosswalk, and the vehicle signal, etc. was sent back to a sudden change by green, etc. while the vehicle signal, etc. was loaded in red, etc., the instant accident is deemed to have occurred when the signal, etc. of the crosswalk was changed by red lights and the vehicle signal, etc. was changed by green, etc., but the Defendant violated the duty to protect pedestrians and the duty to observe the signal, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On November 12, 2012, the Defendant, who is engaged in driving of CMF5 private taxis, was driving the two-lane road in front of the Busan Bank, Busan, Seodong-dong on November 15, 2012, along with one-lane road, from the front side of the Busan, to the front side of the Seocho-do.
At the time, since the vehicle signal apparatus and crosswalk are installed on the front door, the driver engaged in the driving of the motor vehicle had a duty of care to observe the signal and to ensure the safe driving of the motor vehicle by closely examining the movement of pedestrians crossing the crosswalk.
Nevertheless, the Defendant violated the stop signal of the vehicle and did not look at the movement of the pedestrian crossing who is crossing by the pedestrian signal, and was negligent in proceeding without examining the movement of the pedestrian, and received the parts of the victim D (the age of 68) who crosses the right from the left side of the running direction of the Defendant, in front of the right side of the said taxi.
Ultimately, the Defendant suffered from the victim’s injury, such as pressure duplicating T12 minutes, which requires approximately 12 weeks of medical treatment due to such occupational negligence.
B. The lower court’s determination on this is as follows.
Pedestrians, drivers of vehicles, and riders of horses passing along roads shall use signal apparatus or safety signs.