(a) Duty of care of train engine officers;

(b) Duty of care of a train driver;

A. The engineer of a train has a duty of care to check the operating conditions, etc. of the preceding train or attempt to communicate with the preceding train, etc. to check the distance relationship, etc., and if the engineer knew that the preceding train continues to operate without stopping in the designated shelter, the engineer is obliged to do so.

B. In the event that the operation time report of the special-level train, which is an accident that takes place, increases or decreases by 1 and 2 minutes, a driver who adjusts the operation, evacuation, etc. of trains and takes duties to stop more than 1 and 2 minutes in the stopping zone, the operator has a duty of care to coordinate the operation of trains so that the two trains can cross-rout in the middle station by adjusting the time so that they do not suffer any drilling accident, taking into account these circumstances into account.

Article 268 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendant and Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Jong-ro (Defendant 1) Dong Young-young (Defendant 2) (Defendant 3) and Song Young-young (Defendant 3)

Cheongju District Court Decision 78No126 delivered on May 22, 1978

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the judgment of the court of first instance and the reasoning of the judgment below as to Defendant 1's grounds of appeal, even if the automatic color signal between the Leewon Station and the bomb was visible due to the malfunction at the time of the instant train towing accident, the engineer operating the special-level train has occupational duty of care to confirm the operation situation of the front train or the distance relationship by attempting to cross with the front train, etc., and as well, the defendant was aware of the circumstances in which the completion train operated in the front of the train operated by the defendant without stopping in the bomb station which is the shelter, and thus, it could prevent this sudden accident by easily discovering the operation situation of the front train, but this accident was caused by neglecting the duty of rapid operation, and the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the records, or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the fact-finding without any errors in the rules of evidence, and it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the facts.

2. As to Defendant 3’s ground of appeal

Examining the evidence of the first instance judgment maintained by the judgment, based on the records, Defendant 3, a driving company, neglected to report on the operation of trains such as station and driver, etc., Defendant 1’s negligence and failure of automatic color signal apparatus, etc., even if the sudden accident of this train occurred concurrently in line with the official duties of Defendant 3, a driving company, and Defendant 3, who performed duties of coordinating the progress, evacuation, etc., of various levels of trains in operation and his duties to stop more than 1,2 minutes in the workplace where the complete driving train stops due to a holiday in which the day is a holiday, and there was an increase or decrease in the operation time report of the special-class train, which is a one-half-minute train, which is a one-minute train that is a previous from the intermediate station, and there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the negligence on the part of Defendant 3, as well as the negligence on the part of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal:

First, the part as to Defendant 2 was examined, and the evidence established by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been caused by Defendant 2’s mistake, which maintained the voltage of the electric signal apparatus No. 4 above 1.5 V. If the court below collected various evidences cited by the court below, the failure of the signal apparatus No. 4 above is not caused by the remaining phenomenon by raising the voltage of the electric power generation, but it is strongly presumed that it was caused by other internal induction or power generation action. Thus, Defendant 2 cannot be deemed to have been caused by the power transmission voltage of the signal apparatus No. 4 above, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the intention of neglecting duty as to the crime of neglecting duty, which is the conjunctive charge, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the conjunctive charge and the facts charged in violation of the rules of evidence selection, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts charged in violation of the rules of evidence selection and the judgment.

Next, the non-guilty portion of the defendant 4 by the record is examined as to the intention of the abandonment of duties in the case of the crime of abandonment of duties. Although the reasoning of the judgment is somewhat insufficient, the court below rejected the charge of the crime of abandonment of duties. However, since the defendant 4 was unable to conduct a close inspection of the signal apparatus within his jurisdiction, the non-indicted 4's oral report was made on the non-indicted 4, his subordinate staff, and the non-indicted 4's failure to conduct a close inspection of the signal apparatus at that time due to the repair of security equipment and inspection of other signal apparatus within his jurisdiction, etc., and the evidence produced by the prosecutor alone cannot be recognized as the fact that the defendant 4 abandons the close inspection as the intention of the non-indicted 4 to waive his official duties. As such, the judgment of innocence in the original judgment is just, and the crime of abandonment of duties and preparation of false public document is not related with the legal concurrence or commercial concurrence, and there is no reason to acknowledge the non-guilty of the crime of abandonment of duties.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Dra-ro (Presiding Justice)