(B)Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury to Children)

A

Prosecutor

For example, the court shall hold a public trial.

Law Firm Gyeong-ju

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Jeonju District Court Decision 2020Gohap171 Decided October 14, 2020

January 13, 2021

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a QM6 car.

On April 28, 2020, the Defendant driven the said car at around 15:06, while driving the said car, led to the rapid rapid speed of about 28.8km at the speed of about the speed of 28.8km from the front city to the front of the D Driving School C (hereinafter referred to as the “instant road”). Since there is a crosswalk without signal lights, and is designated as a child protection zone, the Defendant has a duty of care to check whether a person driving the vehicle is a child and drive the crosswalk safely.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded without reducing the speed in front of the crosswalk and caused the Defendant to go beyond the road by taking out the Victim G (A, 10 years of age) who was going to walk along the crosswalk from the left side of the road to the right side of the Defendant’s direction, along the crosswalk, as the front part of the said vehicle. The Defendant sustained by negligence on the part of the Defendant, as above, an injury to the victim, such as the outer side of the left side and the bones of the bones, etc., which requires approximately eight weeks of medical treatment.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

이 사건 사고 장소가 초등학교 앞 도로이고, 사고 시간이 하교시간으로 어린이들의 통행이 빈번한 때이며, 도로에 정차된 차량들로 시야가 제한되어 있었고, 피해자가 하차한 차량이 비상등을 켠 채로 정차 중이었으므로, 피고인에게는 피해자가 갑자기 도로를 횡단할 것을 예상하여 위 승용차의 속도를 줄이고 전방좌우를 주시할 업무상 주의의무가 있었다. 피고인이 이러한 주의의무를 게을리 하여 이 사건 사고가 발생하였음에도, 원심은 이 사건 공소사실을 무죄로 판단하였으니 원심판결에는 사실을 오인한 잘못이 있다.

3. The judgment of the court below

The court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the defendant was negligent in the course of the accident at the time of the accident, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① The instant road was set at a speed of 30 km per hour as a children’s protection zone, but the Defendant driven the said vehicle at a speed of less than that of restriction. The Defendant did not appear to have a pedestrian who was passing the crosswalk immediately before the instant accident. As such, the Defendant did not have a duty to temporarily stop in front of the crosswalk as stipulated in Article 27(1) of the Road Traffic Act. In the traffic accident report (the actual survey report) on the instant accident, stating that the Defendant did not have a driver’s cause in connection with the cause of the accident.

② The victim, who was set up on the opposite side of the vehicle that was set up on the opposite side, conflict with the front side of the vehicle that was set up on the road and the front side of the driver’s seat of the said vehicle. Even according to the black stuff image of the said vehicle, the victim did not take a second place within the left side of the said vehicle without the time when the victim appears in the left side of the said vehicle. As such, the Defendant seems to have failed to properly deem that the said vehicle and the victim moved out on the road even at the

③ From the standpoint of the Defendant’s driving in the opposite direction, in light of the state of stopping of the vehicle parked by the victim at the time of the instant case, it was difficult to see the rear left of the vehicle parked by the victim as well as the rear left of the vehicle. The instant road has a lot of commercial buildings in the vicinity, there were many vehicles parked on both lanes, and there were no children, including the victim, on the instant road and the sidewalk. The instant road and the sidewalk did not appear. The fact that the vehicle was parked on the opposite side of the vehicle due to emergency, etc. by the victim, it was difficult for the Defendant to expect the victim, who is a child, to go to the instant road after the vehicle.

④ According to the traffic accident analysis report of the Road Traffic Authority, approximately 0.7 seconds were required from the time the victim appeared in the black box of the said vehicle until the point of collision with the said vehicle. The time necessary for the suspension after whether the vehicle at the time of the instant accident is at the speed of approximately 28.8km, which is at the speed of the said vehicle, was estimated to be approximately 2.3 seconds and the stop distance to 13.2 meters. Under such circumstances, even if the Defendant accurately operates the steering gear or brake system, the instant accident could not be avoided.

(5) The phrase “airtime” during the main driving is ordinarily considered as 0.7 to 1 second, the hours from the time when the defendant can recognize the victim as to the point of time to the point of time, and even if the defendant is aware of the victim’s existence as soon as possible, it seems that he/she does not operate the brate until the point of the collision.

6. The duty to drive under consideration to children's safety shall be interpreted as corresponding to the duty to drive on the road and on the side of the road in order to observe the speed of 30 km per hour, and to recognize the danger of traffic accidents to children. It is difficult to view that there is a duty to temporarily stop for every place where children can sprink up or sprink up at the speed of 30 km per hour, in any circumstance where children cannot fully recognize the existence of children solely on the ground that they are children protection zones.

4. The judgment of this Court

The following facts and circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the above circumstances revealed by the court below, i.e., the defendant stopped at the intersection and passed the crosswalk without a stop line after passing through the intersection. Under such circumstances, the defendant cannot find laws that provide that the defendant is obligated to temporarily stop. ② The accident of this case is not a shocking part of the above vehicle as stated in the facts charged, but it occurred in the form of the victim's walking on the road of this case and shocking part of the above vehicle's driving seat; ③ the vehicle without the victim's walking on the crosswalk in the form of blocking the crosswalk installed on the road of this case, which is a two-lane road, and led the victim to cross the road at the point other than the crosswalk. In addition to the allegations of facts, the court below's determination that the victim could not be justified at the time of the accident of this case, if the victim stopped before or after the above crosswalk, and it could not be justified.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the Gimsung

Judges Lee Young-young

Judge Senior Superintendent General

1) Although the facts charged are "the way to walk along the crosswalk", there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant accident constitutes an accident in the crosswalk (see, e.g., evidence records 7, 23, 37, 66).