beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) is that when the defendant drives a towing vehicle B on the sidewalk (hereinafter “the towing vehicle of this case”), he shall pay more attention than when he drives the towing vehicle on the roadway. It is more reasonable that the defendant's act of driving the towing vehicle of this case on the sidewalk is regarded as an act of a justifiable party in the course of business and is regarded as violating the same duty of care on the roadway, and thus, the judgment of the court below dismissing the prosecution of this case by misapprehending the legal principles which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the defendant is engaged in driving of towing vehicles of this case, the driver of the vehicle shall pass along the roadways separated from the sidewalks and the roadways, and when crossing the sidewalk because it is necessary to enter a place other than the sidewalk, he has the duty of care to temporarily stop immediately before crossing the sidewalk, to ensure that he does not obstruct the passage of pedestrians after living well in the surroundings.
Nevertheless, at around 08:49 March 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) neglected to drive the vehicle while driving the vehicle on the ground that the victim C was illegally parked in front of the 1-1st day of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Cheonggu, Seoul, and neglected to drive the vehicle, and (b) caused injury to the victim, who was a pedestrian behind the Defendant’s vehicle, due to the collision with the towing device of the towing vehicle and caused the victim to undergo approximately three weeks of medical treatment.
B. The public prosecution of this case was instituted on the premise that the Defendant caused the instant traffic accident while driving “influence of the news report”.
However, the defendant is engaged in the business of towing, keeping, and returning vehicles violating parking regulations by proxy pursuant to Article 36 of the Road Traffic Act, and is towing the vehicle of the victim illegally parked at the time of this case.