도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)등
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
1. On February 23, 2012, the Defendant is a person who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for ten months at the Incheon District Court for a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. and whose judgment became final and conclusive on March 6, 2012, and is still under suspension of execution.
At around 14:30 on September 16, 2012, the Defendant was under the influence of blood alcohol concentration of about 0.09% in the section of about 19k from the Do in front of the mutually influent restaurant located in Sincheon-dong, Seocheon-gu, Incheon to the front road of Seocheon-gu 129-78.
B. Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Incriminary Measures) (Incriminary Measures) the Defendant: (a) driven a car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.09% at the same time while under the influence of alcohol level of the same time; and (b) led three-lanes in front of the said passenger farm through two-lanes from the distance of tango-distance to the water distribution station.
A person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to operate safely by accurately operating the steering gear and steering the steering gear and steering gear.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and neglected to do so, and instead neglected to do so, received the following part of the victim C’s Magner’s car in front of the Defendant’s driving vehicle: (a) the lower part of the victim C, which was in the atmosphere of the signal at the front.
Ultimately, the Defendant, by negligence in the course of performing such duties as above, did not immediately stop the vehicle so that the repair cost of KRW 1,246,226 is damaged to the lower part of the vehicle behind, but escaped without taking measures such as providing relief to the victim.
2. According to the resident inquiry and a certified copy of resident registration attached to the judgment records, it is recognized that the defendant died on March 9, 2013, which was after the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Articles 363(1) and 328(1)2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.
April 10, 2013