beta
수원지방법원 2014.06.19 2014고단1397

도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. At around 12:50 on November 2, 2013, the Defendant: (a) driven a Grandroth in Grand City and operated the right line distance inciting the right line from the telescope to the telescope of terminal director distance; (b) was negligent in driving directly from the exclusive lane for the right line installed at the place to the right line; and (c) was driven directly on the road of the victim C(36 years old) who was driving directly on the road for the third line of the right line installed at the place to the right line; and (d) went away without taking necessary measures so that repair costs can be caused by shocking the front part of the right line of the said vehicle to the lower part of the left side of the said vehicle.

2. The purpose of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic dangers and obstacles that may occur on roads to ensure safe and smooth traffic, not to recover physical damage to victims, and in such cases, measures to be taken by drivers at the site shall be taken appropriately according to the circumstances of the accident scene, such as the details of the accident and the degree and degree of damage, and the degree of measures to be taken by drivers at the site refers to measures to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound forms;

(2) On June 24, 2005, the traffic accident of this case is a minor contact accident, namely, the traffic accident of this case is a minor contact accident, and C, the driver of the defendant or the other vehicle, and the vehicle involved in the accident is a relatively minor material damage. The vehicle involved in the above accident is deemed to have suffered a relatively minor material damage. Won Passenger E also stated that it did not have any damage to the above D bus and did not repair because it is necessary to repair it. The traffic accident of this case is scattered with flying dust on the road due to the traffic accident of this case.

In full view of the fact that there is no evidence to deem that there is a danger or obstacle to traffic, such as there is a possibility of decline or collapse, the defendant is safe and safe by preventing and removing the danger or obstacle to traffic after the traffic accident in this case.