교통사고처리특례법위반
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of eight million won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is a person who drives a C-A-Wurd-Wurt Motor Vehicle.
On November 18:03, 2013, the Defendant driven the above car and led to the flow of the road of one lane in front of the Gangnam real estate located in the long-term Gyeonggjin-gu, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, to the Simpo (Seoul) Seog-gu.
In this case, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely operate a motor vehicle by accurately operating the steering gear and steering gear.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and found the victim D (the age of 66) who walked in the same direction as the Defendant’s vehicle at that time, but did not avoid it, and did not go to the left side of the Defendant, and got the victim go beyond the ground.
Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim’s death with cerebrovascular in around November 10, 2013, while receiving medical treatment from the main hospital of the Mag-Satop Hospital located in the South-gu Magdo-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Each police statement concerning E and F;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the actual traffic accident investigation report and death diagnosis report;
1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents Optional to Punishment, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and selection of fines
1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;
1. The reason for sentencing was that the Defendant was the primary offender, the deposited KRW 20 million for the victim’s bereaved family members after the instant crime, the fact that the Defendant was subscribed to a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, and the Defendant was found to have been negligent in violating the duty of exclusive care. On the other hand, the Defendant’s mistake of walking on the road while drinking alcohol was the cause of the instant accident, and other factors such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime.