beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged was raised by the prosecutor in the trial of the case, and the vehicle number of the defendant's operation was specified, and this court permitted this. However, in light of the argument process of the court below in the record, the part added in the trial of the court below was found to be without dispute and omitted in the process of preparing the judgment merely because it was acknowledged without dispute, and it is irrelevant to the issue the defendant's reason for appeal, and even if added, it cannot be deemed that the subject of the judgment is different because it does not cause an obstacle to the exercise of the defendant's right of defense
On August 20, 2013, the Defendant driven G vehicle around 11:30 on August 20, 2013, and driven the front road of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City H in the direction of the reverse village distance from the area of the reverse village distance.
In such cases, a driver has a duty of care to ensure that if the vehicle ahead stops suddenly when following another vehicle running in the same direction, he/she has a duty of care to prevent accidents by securing a distance necessary to avoid drilling with the vehicle ahead.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to operate the vehicle in close vicinity by negligence, and found and stopped a vehicle that was used for the D Eth Ethmp of C Driving prior to the start-up in the right-hand apartment, and the Defendant did not keep the necessary distance to avoid collision with the vehicle in front of the Defendant, such as discovering the vehicle in front of the right-hand side of C Driving, but he did not immediately find it and immediately drive, but he did not repair the part behind the left-hand side of C Driving in front of the Defendant.
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant secured a safety distance and operated normally, and the instant accident occurred due to the intention of the victim.
3. The lower court, based on the evidence of the lower court, found the facts charged.