beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact that the defendant and I at the time of the accident are found to have violated the signal system by estimating the time when the above passenger car arrives at the instant intersection, which is the location where the accident occurred, based on the speed of the Karen car of the 1 driver's car confirmed as CCTV image, the Road Traffic Authority and the National Institute of Science and Investigative Research confirmed that the accident of this case occurred, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed the accident of this case by negligence in violation of the intersection signal, and therefore, the judgment of the court below acquitted the defendant on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (U.S.A.) and the Road Traffic Act (U.S. (U. after the accident) among the facts charged of this case
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) The prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts is that the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial, and the conviction of guilt should be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is doubtful to be guilty.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6110 delivered on February 11, 2003, etc.). In light of the reasoning of the judgment, the lower court cannot be readily concluded that the instant traffic accident occurred at three times during the signal cycle (the signal, etc. in the direction that the Defendant was running), and rather, the two times (the signal, etc. in the direction that the Defendant was running) is likely to occur at two times (the green signal cycle), and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and the witness’s statement in the court below alone are sufficient.