beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The accused shall announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) The Defendant driven a vehicle in excess of 70km/h/ 20km/h from the limit of the instant accident at the time of the instant accident.
lack of evidence to determine the person.
2) At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant was negligent on the part of the Defendant, because there was no awareness due to the cerebral cerebral versation.
shall not be deemed to exist.
B. At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss as he lost consciousness due to the cerebral typhism.
(c)
The punishment of the court below (the amount of eight million won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. The facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who is engaged in driving a passenger car in B SP-type (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).
At around 14:00 on July 21, 2016, the Defendant proceeded at the speed of 94.4 km each hour between the two lanes in the direction of the Government, along with the two-lanes in the direction of the Government in the direction of the CIC.
At that time, the limited speed is 70 km per hour, so in such a case, there was a duty of care to safely drive a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle by complying with the restricted speed.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and neglected to proceed with a limited speed exceeding 24.4 km, and neglected to go around two-lanes in front of the victim E (47 taxes) driving, thereby receiving the back part of the damaged vehicle as the front part of the instant vehicle.
Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the above victim E by occupational negligence during approximately eight weeks of medical treatment, such as damage to a livering prevention, which does not have any open room within the lecture.
B. The lower court’s judgment did not directly support the Defendant at the time of the instant accident, as to whether the Defendant was in a state of the development of a complex due to brain death, and rather, the lower court’s judgment by the witness G.