beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not know about the police officer F's detection in violation of the signal, nor did the Defendant intended to overtake the damage to the F's driving.
Rather, if F intends to overtake Defendant Oral Sea, it is possible for F to conflict with Defendant Oral Sea as the damaged Oral Sea.
The accident of this case occurred solely by occupational negligence of F, and the defendant has no occupational negligence.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the evidence examined by the court below, the fact that the accident of this case occurred due to occupational negligence, which the defendant neglected his duty of care as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the court below, leading to the occurrence of damages.
The lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
F driving the damaged off-to-hand turn, and making a left turn from the stadium distance to the stadium distance pursuant to the new line, and at this time, the defendant's off-to-land turned directly from the stadium side to the stadium distance, in violation of the signal of the defendant's off-to-face.
B. At the investigative agency and the court below’s decision, “F discovered the Defendant’s driving in contravention of the signal, and sent a siren to stop the Defendant’s driving. On the left side of the Defendant’s Republic of Korea, the F continuously sent the Defendant’s signal to the left side to delayed speed and stop the Defendant’s driving on the left side. However, the Defendant’s driving on the left side of the Defendant’s Republic of Korea, without disregarding it, led to an accident that was approaching the direction of the damaged py to avoid the damaged py.”
C. According to CCTV images, the defendant driven in violation of the above signal, and the defendant Oral Ba was driving ahead of the damaged Oral Ba, and the defendant was speeded first and later.