The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. With respect to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents among the facts charged in the instant case, a traffic accident occurred when a vehicle driven by the Defendant had been driven more than a certain period of time while the vehicle driven by the Defendant had not been driven, the vehicle driven by the victim after a certain period of time passed from the road. The said traffic accident is merely a violation of the duty of care of the victim and does not constitute an occupational negligence of the defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds delineated below.

‘ 피고인이 혈 중 알콜 농도 0.094% 의 술에 취한 상태에서 화물차를 운전 하다, 도로 우측 하단에 설치된 화단 석을 충격하면서 피고인 운전차량이 전복되었고, 그 충격으로 화단 석의 돌이 도로로 튕겨 져 나간 사실, 후행하던 피해자는 피고인 차량이 전복된 부분을 지나다가 위와 같이 화단 석의 돌에 피해자 운전 차량의 전면 하단부를 부딪친 후 재차 중앙 분리대( 가드레일) 을 충격한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

위와 같은 사실에 의하면, 피해자가 입은 상해는 피고인의 업무상 과실에 의하여 피고인 운행 차량이 화단 석을 충격하여 화단 석의 돌이 도로로 튕겨 져 나온 사실로 말미암은 것이므로 상당 인과 관계가 인정된다.

Ultimately, the defendant is found to have violated the Special Act on the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

“”

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court in light of the above circumstances set forth by the lower court, i.e., the road where the Defendant driven the freight in a drinking state.