(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.4.29. 선고 2018고합1080 판결

The prosecution against the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) is dismissed among the facts charged in this case.

The summary of the acquittal part in this judgment shall be publicly notified.

Reasons

1. Facts charged;

The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a rocketing car.

On June 5, 2018, at around 22:43, the Defendant continued the way in front of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, along the two-lanes of the five-lane road in the way of the same intersection from the surface of the same intersection. In such a case, the Defendant had a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by accurately operating the steering direction and operation of the vehicle in accordance with the traffic conditions of the vehicle, and by safely operating the steering direction and operation of the vehicle in accordance with the vehicle traffic conditions.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and neglected to drive a stroke while driving a stroke, and neglected to do so, the Defendant received the part adjacent to the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was driven in the same direction as the running direction of the Defendant’s vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant: (a) by such occupational negligence, caused the victim D to suffer knee, knee, tensions, etc., which require treatment for about three weeks; (b) caused the victim F, who took advantage of the damaged vehicle, to suffer approximately two weeks of knee, and other salt ties and tensions in detail; and (c) at the same time, avoided the right side of the damaged vehicle to repair the damaged vehicle without taking necessary measures, such as providing relief.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

At the time of the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, the Defendant was unable to recognize the shocking fact of the damaged vehicle due to driving close, and there was no intention to escape. The injury of the victims of the instant accident was insignificant and there was no need to take relief measures.

(b) Results of the jury verdict;

○ "guilty": Ten persons.

00 Not guilty: Seven persons (per day);

C. Conclusion

1) Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under the case where there is no proof of crime. However, the order does not separately render a verdict of innocence insofar as the prosecution is dismissed on the violation of

2) As to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unclaimed measures) among the facts charged in the instant case, it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified pursuant to the main sentence

3. Rejection portion

Of the facts charged in this case, the summary of the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) contained in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is as follows: “A defendant suffers from injury such as salt knee, knee, tension, etc. in which a victim D needs to be treated for about three weeks due to negligence in the course of business as stated in the above facts charged, knee and knee, etc., requiring approximately two weeks medical treatment for the victim F, and knee and tension

This part of the facts charged is a crime falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the same Act. However, according to the written agreement submitted by the defendant, it is recognized that the victims submitted a written agreement containing a declaration that they would not want punishment against the defendant to this court after the prosecution of this case.

Therefore, the charge of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) among the facts charged in this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is decided as per Disposition through a participatory trial according to the defendant's wishes for more than one reason.