(영문) 광주지방법원 2021.5.11. 선고 2020노1367 판결

In light of the fact that the light of the street and the surrounding standing points was protruding a road, and the victim had already been in the crosswalk at the time when the Defendant entered the road bypassing the road, and that the location of the accident of this case was changing and the accident was not occurred during the night, it is recognized that the Defendant violated the duty of care. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted the Defendant of the facts

2. Determination

A. 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 can not sufficiently prove that there was occupational negligence at the time of shocking the victim, in light of the following: (i) the average speed of the section immediately before the accident of the defendant vehicle is presumed to have been about 37.4 km or about 39.7 km per hour; (ii) the comprehensive traffic accident analysis report and the response to the request for cooperation in investigation by the Road Traffic Authority to the effect that the location of the accident is not clearly identified; (iii) the defendant was driving at a speed far above the speed of the accident (60 km per hour); (iv) the victim's clothes at the time of the accident appears to have been difficult to distinguish at night; and (iii) the defendant was not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone proves that there was an occupational negligence at the time of shocking the victim.

B. Judgment of the court below

1) Relevant legal principles

A driver of a motor vehicle may not be obliged to perform his/her duty of care to anticipate and prepare for an occurrence of an exceptional situation that is sufficiently satisfied and difficult to anticipate by performing his/her duty of care to avoid the outcome in preparation for an ordinary predicted situation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Do833, Jul. 9, 1985). If a pedestrian signal, etc. on a crosswalk is indicated in red color, the driver of a motor vehicle does not exceed the duty of care to drive the motor vehicle by disregarding the red signal and predicting it in advance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Do1893, Nov. 12, 1985).

2) Specific determination

In light of the above facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below's duly adopted and investigated evidence in light of the above legal principles, since it cannot be deemed that the defendant who was operating while complying with the restricted speed does not have the duty of care to anticipate the victim's failure to cross the road that was set up before sunrise in violation of pedestrian signal and to prepare for it, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is reasonable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles of the judgment below. Accordingly, the prosecutor's assertion is rejected.

○ A signal was installed on the crosswalk in which the instant accident occurred. At the time of the occurrence of the accident, the signal was kept for at least one minute prior to the occurrence of the instant accident. The Defendant entered the road bypassing around about 10 seconds prior to the occurrence of the accident, and was driving at a much lower speed than the speed at the time.

Before about 15 to 20 seconds of the accident, the victim started to enter the crosswalk and walk. Around about 20 seconds, the bus passed by around 20 seconds, etc., and the victim was cut off the crosswalk due to the violation of pedestrian signal, but the victim did not look at the view of the standing and the surrounding areas.

○ At the time of the instant accident, it was sound before sunrise (07:16 on the same day, and the instant accident occurred at around 06:40 on the road). While street lamps turned on the side of the road, the surrounding areas were considerably difficult.

3. Conclusion

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