2016 Highest 41 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Doing Vehicles)

A

Before and aftermathing, stuffed leaves

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

December 16, 2016

1. The defendant is innocent.

2. The summary of the judgment of innocence against the accused shall be published;

1. Facts charged;

The defendant is a person who is engaged in the duty of driving a small-scale taxi in C.

On October 19, 2015, the Defendant driven the above rocketing taxi on October 12:35, 2015, and operated a one-lane road around the Cheongju-si Cheongju-si Cheongju-si, and one-lane road around the inner elementary school, along the inner live distance from the inner lives of the Gyeyang elementary school.

Since there is a children protection zone where a central line is installed, it is confirmed whether a person engaged in driving service has a child to build a road by reducing the speed and thoroughly displaying the right and the right of the road, and there is a duty of care to safely drive the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and did not avoid the victim D (V) who entered the opposite line in order to cut off the course due to negligence that gets frightened with the center line. In addition, the Defendant was able to receive the victim with the part of the aforementioned small taxi driver in the front line of the Naa-si, which the Defendant drive.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by negligence in the above occupational negligence, stayed immediately and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victim, even though the Defendant suffered injury, such as the salt of the promotional team, to the right side of the victim, which requires treatment for about four weeks.

2. Determination

The facts charged of this case are based on the premise that the defendant invadedd the central line, and caused the accident of this case by negligence.

We examine the fault and causation of the defendant.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined, the defendant can be recognized as driving the defendant's vehicle at the port of the accident in this case so that the left wheel of the defendant's vehicle can proceed with the center line above the center line.

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s act of collisioning the center line on the left side of the vehicle, even if the Defendant operated to the port side of the center line. Thus, it is difficult to recognize that the instant accident occurred, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① The instant accident point is a section that requires the speed of up to 30 km per hour as a children protection zone, and the Defendant is presumed to operate approximately 23 through 24 km per hour. Thus, the Defendant did not delay.

② The instant accident road is one lane, and at the time of the instant accident point, three vehicles were parked along the opposite lane of the Defendant’s moving lane. While the vehicle was not parked on the opposite lane of the Defendant’s moving lane, E goods immediately front of the accident point were placed in part of the road.

③ In light of the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle stops immediately after the shocking of the instant road without leaving the front behind the parked vehicle, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant neglected his duty of care in operating the brake system.

④ According to the fact-finding inquiry reply by the Chungcheong Branch of the Road Traffic Authority, the point at which the defendant could have become aware of the victim in the situation at the time is 2.6 to 3.2 meters from the shock point, considering the time and distance required to the shock, the identification response time and distance of ordinary drivers, etc., the defendant could not avoid collision with the victim.

⑤ In addition, according to the fact-finding inquiry reply, even though the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked beyond the median line, the victim could not be avoided, on the premise that it did not exceed the median line.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered under Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the purport of the judgment of innocence is publicly announced under Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

Judges Kim Jong-soo