beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. When comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances of the grounds for appeal, a traffic accident resulting in the death of a victim caused by negligence in the course of business, in which the defendant neglected his/her duty of care in the front direction;
must be viewed.
Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case on the ground of the so-called "the principle of trust". The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person engaged in driving C salary C and C C in the instant water vehicle.
On September 27, 2017, the Defendant driven the above vehicle on September 27, 2017, and led to a three-one hundred and one-one-one-one-one-three short distance from the Haju MBC to the right after the building.
At that time, the traffic signals, etc. were normally operated through the cross-distance D driving, and the body car was in the left-hand turn to the Hoam comprehensive sports center in the front door of the university in the new country. In such a case, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to operate the car by accurately operating the front and rear right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and
Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and proceeded with the part of the defendant's cargo vehicle that was front of the passenger vehicle in D with the front part of the defendant's cargo vehicle.
Ultimately, on February 14, 2018, the Defendant caused D’s death by occupational negligence, which was difficult to breath in the F Convalescent Hospital.
B. The lower court and the lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the part of “judgment” among the lower judgment.
In a close examination of the circumstances presented by the court below by comparing them with the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and in addition, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, are the progress of the defendant's vehicle.