beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal D and E investigation agency's statement, although it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant's vehicle shocked D and E with the crosswalk, the judgment of dismissing the prosecution of the facts charged in this case is erroneous for misunderstanding of facts.
2. On May 20, 2010, the Defendant, at around 23:23:23, driven a C-A-to-pubed car, leading the front road of the Gyeongyang-si, Jyang-si, Jinyang-si, which is 61, to the Jinyang-si Office at the port of the parking lot of the white hospital.
At the same time, there was a crosswalk without a pedestrian signal, so in such a case, the driver had a duty of care to check whether there was a person who gets on the way to see well the front left, and to drive safely.
Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and got the body of the victim D (the age of 40) and the victim E (the age of 46) to go beyond the road by taking the front part of the above vehicle driving by the defendant.
After all, the Defendant suffered from the above occupational negligence to the victim D with injury, such as ductal ducts, from the outside of the slots, which requires approximately five weeks of medical treatment, and multiple ductal ductal ducts and ductal ducts that require medical treatment to the victim E for about two weeks.
3. Determination
A. The lower court determined that the instant accident constitutes a crime under the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and therefore, the instant facts charged constitute a crime under the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, on the grounds that there are evidence showing that the instant accident was an accident in the crosswalk, including D and E’s statement on the occurrence of each traffic accident, and an investigation report on the actual condition of the traffic accident (including investigation record 66 pages), but the said evidence alone is difficult to deem