2018No617 Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Death or Injury)

A

Defendant

Kim Cheong-young (Public Prosecution) and Lee Motion Pictures (Public Trial)

Attorney Kim Yong-Hy (Korean)

Cheongju District Court Decision 2017Ma2284 Decided May 31, 2018

November 8, 2018

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment of innocence against the accused shall be published.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

At around 11:40 on September 4, 2017, the Defendant driven a B EX-type car and led the e-mail intersection (hereinafter referred to as the “instant intersection”) to the C cafeteria at the seat of the management office of the Corporation, where the e-mail 112 U.S. is located in the e-mail of the Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the e-mail, and the e-mail is a private intersection where there is no signal, and traffic control is not performed. As such, the Defendant viewed the e-mail and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and accurately operates the steering and the operation of the steering and operation system for temporary suspension before entering the intersection, and caused the above e-mail to the above e-mail of the victim (82 years old and older) to the right and the right and the above e-mail of the victim to the above e-mail of the e-mail 90,005.

2. The judgment of the court below

원심은, 피고인이 이 사건 교차로 진입 직전에 일시정지하는 등 도로교통법 제31조 제2항 제1호에서 정한 통행방법을 준수하지 않은 이상, 피고인의 차량이 피해자의 오토바이보다 이 사건 교차로에 먼저 진입하였다거나 피고인 차량의 속도보다 피해자 오토바이의 속도가 더 빨랐다는 사정만으로는 피고인에게 주의의무 위반이 없었다고 단정하기 어렵다는 이유로, 이 사건 공소사실에 관하여 유죄로 판단하였다.

3. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

피고인의 차량이 피해자의 오토바이보다 교차로에 먼저 진입하였을 뿐만 아니라 피해자의 오토바이 속도가 피고인의 차량 속도보다 빨랐던 것으로 보이는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 설령 피고인이 이 사건 교차로 진입 직전에 일시정지하였다고 하더라도 피해자와의 충돌을 막을 수 없었을 것으로 보인다. 사정이 이와 같다면 이 사건 사고는 피해자의 과실로 말미암아 발생하였던 것으로 보일 뿐이고, 피고인이 일시정지하지 않은 과실과 이 사건 사고 사이에는 인과관계가 없다고 봄이 상당하다. 그럼에도 원심은 이와 다른 전제에서 이 사건 공소사실에 대하여 유죄로 판단하였는바, 원심판결에는 사실을 오인하거나 법리를 오해하여 판결의 결과에 영향을 미친 잘못이 있다.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below against the defendant (six months of imprisonment without prison labor, two years of suspended execution, and forty hours of an order to attend a course) is too unreasonable.

4. Judgment of the court below

(a) Relevant legal principles;

The burden of proving the facts constituting an offense charged in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence with probative value that leads a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the interest of the defendant should be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2008Do4467, Jul. 24, 2008).

B. Determination

In light of the above legal principles, the defendant returned to the instant case and entered the instant intersection without complying with the duty of temporary suspension prior to entering the intersection under Article 31(2)1 of the Road Traffic Act, as alleged by the prosecutor. However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to readily conclude that the instant accident was caused by the defendant’s occupational negligence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

① The Defendant’s driver’s vehicle was somewhat 33 km immediately before the instant accident occurred.

At a speed more than the error of the victim's driver's driving, it entered the intersection of this case (The Daejeon Institute of Scientific Investigation and Investigation of Traffic Accidents in the Daejeon Institute of Scientific Investigation and Investigation, and the 42 to 51 pages of the trial records).

② The time when the instant accident occurred, at around 11:40 on September 4, 2017, did not seem to have any other factors that could interfere with visibility even in light of CCTV images at the time of the accident.

③ In such a situation, even though the victim seems to have been able to confirm that the Defendant’s vehicle had already entered the intersection without temporarily suspending prior to entering the intersection, the victim entered the intersection of this case at a relatively rapid speed of about 45 km, later than the Defendant’s vehicle (i.e.,, the victim would drive the vehicle on the part of the intersection where traffic is not controlled pursuant to Article 26(1) through (2) of the Road Traffic Act), and accordingly, the victim got the front front of the Defendant’s vehicle.

④ Article 31(2)1 of the Road Traffic Act provides that “The driver of a vehicle shall temporarily stop at an intersection where traffic is not controlled, it is impossible to confirm the left and the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or the right or duty of the driver of a vehicle to temporarily stop at the intersection shall not be considered as imposing the duty of temporary suspension in preparation for the situation where the vehicle later reaches the intersection without

⑤ Above all, as seen earlier, insofar as the victim tried to pass through the instant intersection at a speed higher than the Defendant’s vehicle despite having gone through the instant intersection, it seems difficult to readily conclude that even if the Defendant temporarily temporarily closed down and entered the instant intersection, it would have avoided collision with the victim’s right and part, even if having gone through the said intersection.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, as long as it is difficult to view that there is a proximate causal relation between the defendant's breach of duty of care and the accident of this case, the facts charged in this case should be pronounced not guilty on the ground that there is no proof of crime, but on a different premise, the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing, and the defendant's appeal is again decided as follows

【Discretionary Judgment】

The summary of the facts charged in this case is as indicated in Paragraph 1, and it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime as stated in Paragraph 4, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which declares the defendant's acquittal under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and by disclosing the summary of

Judges Yoon Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)

Judges Kang Gyeong-chan

Judges Yoon Sang-il