Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is consistent that the defendant consistently moved back from the right side of the defendant's Tkiki in front of the defendant's moving direction from the right side of the defendant's driver's Tki.
In light of the fact that there is a person who getst skiing from this point of view that there was a case in which the other person is driving a shot shot by the shot shot, making the shot shot shot, etc., the defendant could have sufficiently predicted that the victim could turn to the left.
I seem to appear.
Nevertheless, it caused the death of the victim due to a mistake that the defendant neglected the duty of care to prevent the occurrence of an accident in response to the movement of the victim by means of reducing speed or taking the right and the right and the right well into account.
It is reasonable to view it.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The judgment of the court below acknowledged that the defendant had a duty of care to safely drive the soft and prevent the accident by driving the soft in accordance with subparagraph 1 of attached Table 7 of Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Navigation Rules to be observed by the person engaged in water leisure activities (hereinafter “the Rules of this case”) because the defendant had observed that the soft of the victim's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's license immediately before the accident is considerable in the speed of the soft and the safety distance was close to the defendant'