[1] The case holding that the causal relationship between the station of the vehicle driving by the defendant and the death of the victim is recognized in case where the victim died in the course of the vehicle driving by the defendant in the course of the continuous station of the victim following the preceding vehicle

[2] The duty of care of the driver of a vehicle following the preceding vehicle

[3] The case holding that the defendant's occupational negligence is recognized in the event that the victim died in the course of his continuous stationing the victim following the preceding vehicle

[1] The case recognizing the causal relationship between the station of the vehicle driving by the defendant and the death of the victim in a case where the victim died in the course of the vehicle driving by the defendant following the preceding vehicle and the vehicle driving by the defendant continuously serving the victim

[2] As a driver of a vehicle following a vehicle running ahead of it, he/she has a duty of care to maintain a sufficient safety distance with the vehicle running ahead of it so as not to cause any chain accident at all times due to any sudden driving or accident of the vehicle running ahead of it, and to ensure the safety of course by properly examining the course of the vehicle running ahead of it.

[3] The case holding that the defendant's occupational negligence is recognized in the event that the victim died in the course of his continuous stationing the victim following the preceding vehicle

[1] Articles 17 and 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents / [2] Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article

Defendant’s Bill

Defendant

Attorney Seo-gu

Daejeon District Court Decision 2000No2578 delivered on September 6, 2001

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (including supplementary statements in the grounds of appeal).

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the records, the victim of this case, except that he had been faced by the face before the accident in this case, was faced with external harm on the body or clothes without any trace of external damage. After that, in the process of the co-defendant of the first instance trial and the defendant's vehicle continuously serving the victim, the vehicle of the defendant was damaged by 10 meters away from the body of the victim and the body of the victim in whole. The reason for the victim's death is revealed to be damaged by the two pelle damage, the heart damage, the body of the victim in whole, the body of the victim in whole, and the separation from the two dule and the body of the victim. The victim's body was damaged by the autopsy of the body body and the body part of the victim's body and the body part of the victim's body caused damage to the victim's body and the body part of the victim's body and the body part of the victim's body are still damaged by the defendant's injury to the victim's body and the body part of the victim's body.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that there exists a causal relationship between the station of the vehicle driving by the defendant and the death of the victim is acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence as to the existence of a proximate causal relationship.

The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

2. On the second ground for appeal

A driver of a vehicle driving along a vehicle following the vehicle ahead is obliged to maintain a sufficient safety distance with the vehicle ahead and to proceed with the safety of the course by checking well the course of the vehicle ahead, even if there is any sudden driving or accident of the vehicle ahead, in relation to the situation that the exit of the vehicle ahead is visible by the vehicle ahead.

According to the records, the accident at the time of the accident is about 01:10, and the surface was somewhat milked due to the cost of low visibility and low visibility. The accident point was close from the place where the sloping road begins to the direction of the sloping road. The defendant, while driving the accident vehicle at a speed of about 60 km between the front vehicle and the front vehicle at a speed of about 30 km and driving on the front vehicle at a speed of about 60 km, can be acknowledged that the defendant did not neglect his duty of care to ensure the safety of the vehicle at the time of the accident and without any negligence to ensure the safety of the vehicle at the time of the accident, even if the defendant did not have a duty of care to ensure the safety of the vehicle at the time of the accident even if he did not have a duty of care to ensure the safety of the vehicle at the time of the accident, such as to reduce the speed of the vehicle at the time of the accident and to prevent it from being driven by the front road at the time of the accident.

In the same purport, the court below is just to punish the defendant guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of a duty of care or the principle of trust as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The Supreme Court decision, which is contrary to the grounds of appeal, cannot be invoked as it differs from the case and purport of this case. Thus, there is no violation of the Supreme Court decision in the judgment below.

The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)