beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
A. As to the facts charged in this case by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the pedestrian signal of the crosswalk was green at the time when the defendant crosses the road adjacent to the crosswalk. The traffic accident in this case was caused by the defendant's fault in driving the bus by the victim G while complying with the signal in passing the crosswalk, but the traffic accident in this case was caused by the shocking of the defendant's office and the speed of proceeding over the crosswalk, and it was not caused by the negligence of driving the crosswalk.
B. Of the sentencing division, the lower court’s sentencing: A fine of KRW 1.5 million is determined.
A. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant was driving the Otoba at the time of the traffic accident in this case and driving the road adjacent to the crosswalk, and the victim G driving the bus and passing the crosswalk, and the front signal of the vehicle was green at the time of passing the crosswalk.
Therefore, the defendant is not the " pedestrians passing the crosswalk" who are stipulated as the object of the duty to protect under Article 27 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, but the driver of the motor vehicle under Article 2 subparagraph 17 (a) and subparagraph 17 (a) of the same Article, who is the driver of the motor vehicle under Article 2 subparagraph 17 (3) and subparagraph 19 (a) of the same Article and is obligated not to cross the road pursuant to Article 18 (1) of the same Act. Thus, the defendant's negligence by the defendant driving the otobbbba without permission crossing the road without permission and driving the motor vehicle and the motor vehicle under Article 18 (1) of the same Act is more than the gross negligence of the victim (the defendant claims that the obabain was in excess of G, but there is no evidence to
I would like to say.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.
(b).