beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.10.01 2014고정296

교통사고처리특례법위반등

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who drives a C-wing truck.

On December 29, 2013, the Defendant driven the said vehicle without a driver's license on December 29, 2013, and proceeded in front of the E convenience store in Gwangju Seo-gu along the two-lanes of the city IMB broadcasting station from the hotel room of each hotel.

In such cases, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to accurately operate steering devices, brakes, etc. and to prevent accidents by safely driving according to the traffic conditions of the road and the structure and performance of the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and followed the right shoulder part of the victim F, which is on the road, by mistake, into the right shoulder of the vehicle.

As a result, the Defendant suffered from the Defendant’s negligence on the part of the above victim F with approximately two weeks of care.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The actual condition of traffic accidents (1), and (2);

1. A written inquiry into the driver's license ledger;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

1. Relevant Article 152 subparagraph 1 of Article 152 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act concerning the crime, Article 3 (1), the proviso to Article 3 (2) and Article 3 (7) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

1. Each selective fine for punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act is minor damage to the victim; (b) the Defendant’s vehicle is covered by a comprehensive insurance; and (c) the Defendant supports an open husband and an infant because it overlaps even if the Defendant’s health is not good.