logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.11.29 2019노2334
과실치사등
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant did not have a duty of care in relation to the victim’s death and did not have a causal relationship.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the defendant caused the death of the victim by violating the duty of care is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

On the other hand, the punishment (fine 5 million won) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the same purport as the “legal scenario” in this part of the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the court below rejected the above assertion on the ground that "the defendant, who has closed the road in this case for securing parking spaces, could have sufficiently predicted that the above closed light will interfere with traffic, and accordingly, the defendant has a duty of care, such as installing a danger sign easily recognizable so that the above closed light does not interfere with traffic of the vehicle, etc., or, in particular, taking it out from the road at night. It is sufficient to recognize a causal relationship between the defendant's breach of the duty of care and the occurrence of the accident in this case."

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as alleged by the defendant and his defense counsel.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. We examine both the Defendant and prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing.

The defendant's violation of the Road Traffic Act has been negligent in the occurrence of the accident of this case even to the victim who did not fulfill his/her duty of care in Jeonju.

arrow