logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.03.29 2018노1951
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) should have predicted that pedestrians could cross the instant accident without permission on the ground that the area where the instant accident occurred is the place where pedestrians of ordinary age pass from time to time, many buses stop, and the Defendant knew of this, and thus pedestrians could cross the instant accident.

In addition, the defendant tried to overtake a bus at a speed of 72 km/h in violation of the regulatory speed, and if the defendant had a regulatory speed, he did not conflict with the victim, or did so.

Even if there was no result leading to serious injury, it would not have occurred.

Therefore, the defendant suffered serious injury to the victim due to negligence in breach of duty of care.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant cannot be deemed to have breached his duty of care on the ground that: (a) the location of the accident was ① the 6th line road in front of the distance from the accident scene; (b) the pedestrian signal at the time was red and the vehicle signal was green; and (c) the Defendant, from around 50 meters prior to passing the crosswalk, was driving along the Defendant’s left side; (c) there was a need for at least 45.05 meters to avoid an accident by recognizing and stopping the Defendant’s identity; and (c) the location where the Defendant’s vehicle opened the victim was inside and outside of about 20 meters from the accident scene; and (d) there was no possibility that the Defendant could have anticipated the crossing without permission of the victim; and there was no fault on the part of the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant could not avoid collision with the victim at the time of finding the victim.

B. As a driver of one vehicle in this Court’s judgment, pedestrians trust that the signal on the crosswalk would not be dried between the vehicles where the signal on the crosswalk is stopped in red condition.

arrow