beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2017.07.07 2016고단1834

도로교통법위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 100,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 25,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The driver of any motor vehicle shall be prohibited from stopping or parking a motor vehicle in a crosswalk.

Nevertheless, on September 27, 2016, the Defendant parked the E-Motor vehicle at the crosswalk in front of the D Hospital located in the Gu-gu D Hospital during Ansan-si around 01:50 on September 27, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and subparagraph 1 of Article 156 and subparagraph 1 of Article 32 of the Road Traffic Act (Optional to the punishment) concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted the legitimate act of the Defendant and his defense counsel under the main text of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which bear the burden of litigation costs, asserted that the illegality of the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act, by being forced to park at the entrance of the D hospital, when the Defendant was hospitalized at the D hospital on the multiscopic seat at the

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the fact that the defendant was hospitalized into D Hospital on September 24, 2016, after suffering a multi-diversity satisfy on the part of the neck and Doluri, is recognized.

However, there is an interval between the date of entrance of the defendant and the date of parking the vehicle in the crosswalk of this case, and there is no particular circumstance that the defendant had to park the vehicle in the crosswalk of this case at the time of this case, the defendant's act meets the requirements such as reasonableness, urgency, supplement, etc. of the means required in relation to the act of parking in this case.

It is difficult to see it.

Defendant

We cannot accept the assertion of defense counsel.