2010No42 Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Traffic Accident Settlement

Kim Jong (******************)), agriculture

Residential Jeon Chang-gun ○○

[Defendant-Appellee] 00 Myeon

Both parties

Kim Gmp

Attorney state-ho-ho

Jeonju District Court Decision 2009Dadan154 decided Dec. 30, 2009

April 9, 2010

The lower judgment is reversed. The Defendant is not guilty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant

The defendant found the victim to go on the left side of the road and took measures to avoid it to the right side of the road to the maximum extent possible, and thus the defendant fulfilled his duty of care, so the defendant did not violate his duty of care, and the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts

(b) Prosecutors;

The sentencing of the lower court (fine 2.5 million won) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. Summary of the facts charged

On June 2009, 25, 07:35, around********** the road near the village entrance in the south-si, the south-si, at the south-si, into the village bank to 00 village gate, the Defendant appeared to run down at a rapid speed of the victim gate (50 years old) driving at the front of the road. In such a case, the Defendant had a duty of care to safely drive the vehicle as a person engaging in driving the vehicle, and to prevent accidents by safely driving the vehicle by checking well the front and right and right and right and the right and the right of the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and led the Defendant to go at the same speed as it was, and the Defendant got off the left-hand off tank part of the Defendant’s driver’s headlight with the Defendant’s headlight on the cargo vehicle and left off the above Dog-gu ground. Ultimately, on June 26, 2009, the Defendant caused the victim by negligence in the above occupational negligence to die with a long-term damage to diversity at the electric university hospital located in Kugdong-gu, Geumdong-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, 643-18.

The results were caused.

B. The judgment of the court below

The lower court acknowledged that the instant traffic accident occurred by negligence, despite the Defendant’s duty of due care to temporarily stop in the vicinity of the intersection or to prevent the accident, inasmuch as the Defendant was aware that the victim’s driver’s vehicle, who was driving on the tri-distance intersection from AA village to the tri-distance intersection prior to the arrival of the road as evidence, was able to drive the tri-distance intersection as part of the left side of the road before the Defendant’s legal statement, the on-site inspection report, the death diagnosis report, and the on-site photograph was committed.

3. Judgment of the court below

According to the evidence duly reviewed and adopted by the court below, ① the road in which the accident of this case occurred is 4.8 meters wide without the center line, and the speed of the vehicle is 60 meters long, and the vehicle was cross-sectioned to 730 meters wide from old local highways in the direction where the freight of the defendant driver is running, and there is no temporary stop line indication in the vicinity. ② The defendant found the victim's ozone at a rapid speed toward the intersection from △△ Village while running from this village to the above intersection, and ③ the defendant proceeded to the right side of the road to the △△△ Village by the victim, ③ the defendant was at intervals of 1.7 meters long, and the vehicle was at the right side of the road at the point of the road at the point of 5 meters long, and the vehicle was at the right side of the road at the point of 1.4 meters long, and the vehicle was at the right side of the road at the point of 20 meters long, and the left side of the road is at the right side of the victim.

In full view of the above facts, it is difficult for the defendant to see whether there was negligence on the part of the defendant in connection with the above traffic accident. ① Even though the defendant was found to have a traffic accident, the driver of the motor vehicle and the driver of the vehicle are driving along the right side of the road after finding the victim’s ozone, it is difficult for the defendant to expect that the victim’s ozone that was proceeding at a rapid speed from AAA village to the right side or to turn to the left to the village. Unless there is a temporary suspension display on the above road, the defendant cannot be deemed to have a duty of care to temporarily stop or turn to the village before the arrival of the road. ② Even if the above site of the accident is a road without a central line as a deaf, the driver of the motor vehicle and the driver of the vehicle should pass to the right side of the road (referring to the central line, if it is installed on the road between the sidewalk and the roadway; hereinafter the same shall apply). Thus, the defendant, immediately after the above accident, cannot be seen as having been found to have been under the duty of care to turn to the left to the left side of the road.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the premise that the defendant had a duty of temporary suspension or letter of duty of care, which is anticipated to be done by the left-hand side, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendant's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is again decided as follows after pleading (the prosecutor's appeal disputing unfair sentencing is without merit, but the prosecutor's appeal shall not be dismissed in the separate order as long as the judgment of the court below is reversed). The summary of the facts charged in this case is the same as that of the above Paragraph 2, and it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime like the above Paragraph 3, and thus, it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime as

The presiding judge, the Deputy Judge;

Judges Park Jong-jin

Judges Yoon Dok-be