2015Gohap472 Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

A

Public trial (prosecutions and public trial), Korean-type public trial (public trial)

Attorney B, C (State Ship)

November 5, 2015

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Facts charged;

The defendant is engaged in driving a motor vehicle in D, the test.

On January 22, 2015, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at night in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and proceeded along three laness from the eroscopian distance to the eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscops.

On January 22, 2015, the Defendant caused the victim to die due to brain side in Samsung Seoul Hospital located in Gangnam-gu Seoul on January 22, 2015.

2. Determination

A motor vehicle driver is satisfied by performing his/her duty of care to the extent that he/she could avoid the outcome in preparation for a situation that can normally be predicted, and cannot be said to have a duty of care to anticipate and prepare for an occurrence of an exceptional situation that is ordinarily difficult (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Do833, Jul. 9, 1985).

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was negligent in failing to perform his/her duty of care to prevent accidents as stated in the facts charged.

① At the time of the instant accident, the victim was a new wall before sunrise, and the victim was able to easily identify pedestrians as the Defendant, because the victim was her mother and child on the face with the test color.

A road in which an accident occurred is a main road of four-lanes and is constructed over a section where the central separation cost is longer high to prevent unauthorized crossing until the point of accident immediately preceding (in order to make a left turn and a U-turn at the front intersection, there is no central separation cost at the point of accident).

③ According to the Defendant’s black image, the victim tried to cross the bus in front of the bus waiting for left-hand turn in front of the same direction as the Defendant’s driving direction. Therefore, the Defendant could not find out the victim who was placed on the bus before the bus going out of the bus.

④ According to the traffic accident appraisal report prepared by the Road Traffic Authority which analyzes the above black images, the following circumstances are recognized:

The location where the defendant could first find the victim was about 21 to 24 meters prior to the point of accident, and the defendant found the victim at around 20 meters prior to the point of accident.

In the case of a general driver of the Republic of Korea, approximately 0.95-1 seconds to 0.95 or 1 seconds ( approximately 0.4 seconds to stamp hours required to determine that the driver is a dangerous situation by time, hearing, etc.) from the time of becoming aware of the danger, and approximately 0.25 seconds to the time of the Dong measure that the driver moves from the speed of the speed to the balc pedal, + approximately 0.1 seconds to the quith from the balc pedal pedal pedal pedal to the quithal pedal system, which is delivered with a shock, until the effective reduction is made. As the defendant is confirmed to have discovered the victim, the defendant appears to have immediately taken an appropriate brake measure, and the point at which the speed of the defendant's vehicle has been reduced rapidly was 6 meters prior to the point at which the accident occurred.

The Defendant was driving at a speed of 63.1km per hour on the main road with a speed of 70 km at the time of restriction, and the distance necessary to stop a vehicle driving at the above speed is about 36.1-37 meters. As seen earlier, the Defendant first discovered the victim at a point where the accident occurred at approximately 20 meters prior to the arrival of the accident point. As such, even if the Defendant immediately operated the brake system, it was difficult for the Defendant to avoid collision with the victim (the same applies to the case where the victim was operating the brake system at a point where the accident point arrives at approximately 27-28 meters prior to the arrival of the accident point).

⑤ While the Defendant driven along the two-lanes of the above road prior to the accident, while driving the vehicle driving along the MF5 vehicle behind it, the vehicle was cut down to three lanes, and the Defendant was faced with the victim. In such cases, the prosecutor argued that the Defendant had a duty to particularly sM5 vehicle and to take into account the right and the right of the vehicle. However, it is difficult to view that the Defendant had a duty to pay special attention by predicting that pedestrians cross the vehicle on the front side of the MF5 vehicle without permission, as seen earlier, even if he paid special attention, it was difficult to find in advance the victim who was placed in the bus as seen earlier.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged against the defendant constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the summary of the judgment is publicly announced under Article 58(2) of the Criminal

Jurors's verdict

○ Seven persons who are not guilty (one day of detention)

The presiding judge's pen

Judges senior completion;

Judges Hah Pwn