logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.02.07 2019노1304
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the instant accident is a child protection zone, and it was difficult to secure a view due to a passenger car standing in the opposite direction. As such, the Defendant neglected the duty of care to drive the vehicle while paying more attention to the safety of children, such as delaying the speed of the vehicle or carefully examining the right and the right of the vehicle.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant was not negligent in business.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that there is no evidence that the instant accident was caused by the Defendant’s occupational negligence, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated.

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the above evidence, i.e., the victim started a cross-road without permission from the right side of the vehicle behind the opposite side of the road where the defendant stopped on the left side of the non-protective left-hand turn. Although the accident place is a child protection zone and the vehicle stopping on the opposite side is difficult to secure the view, it is difficult to view that the defendant has a duty of care to view the left-hand side of the sidewalk in preparation for the left-hand turn at the left-hand side of the place where the defendant finished the left-hand turn while making the left-hand turn to the left-hand turn, it is difficult to view that the defendant has a duty of care to view the left-hand side of the crosswalk, and the defendant was proceeding at 20 km speed above the speed of 30 km a speed of the children protection zone, and therefore, it is reasonable to find the defendant not guilty of the charge of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as the prosecutor pointed out in the judgment.

arrow