logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.01 2015노6307
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal was to prevent the instant traffic accident, if the Defendant fulfilled his duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident by driving a road at a bend down and a bend of the instant case, by lowering speed.

The Defendant caused a traffic accident involving a victim by negligence in breach of such duty of care, resulting in the death of the victim.

2. The lower court, based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, deemed that it was difficult for the Defendant to prevent the instant traffic accident due to the discovery and sudden restraint of the Defendant, etc. Therefore, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant caused the instant traffic accident due to the failure to perform his/her duty of care, such as the front-time emergency. Therefore, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged.

A thorough examination of the reasoning of the lower judgment’s acquittal and the evidence of this case by the Prosecutor, and the reply of the Prosecutor to inquire about the facts against the Road Traffic Authority, which is alleged as evidence of guilt, is based on the premise that C was at the location of the instant traffic accident, and that C was able to evade or stop, and there is no evidence to prove C was at the point prior to the accident. Rather, according to the investigation report (related to unauthorized crossing of the victim) and the Defendant’s statement at the court of the lower court and the investigative agency, C was involved in the instant accident while crossing the road.

According to the response of the Seoul Scientific Investigation Agency's inquiry about the facts of the Seoul Investigation Agency, if C was crossing the road at the time of the accident, it seems that the defendant could not avoid the accident due to an sudden operation or a sudden aid even though he fulfilled his duty of care. On the road in this case, there is a centralized cost of about 1.4 meters high, and pedestrians are on the road in order to exceed or pass over the center of these height.

arrow