beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2015.09.10 2015고정187

교통사고처리특례법위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of Bknife car.

On March 4, 2015, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 17:30 on March 4, 2015, and led to the intersection of the crosswalk in which the pedestrian signal, etc. is installed in front of the Haak-dong in the Si/Eup/Myeon in the Eup/Myeon from the direction of the original road.

In such cases, when pedestrians are passing along a crosswalk, they had a duty of care to temporarily stop in front of the crosswalk to prevent pedestrians from crossinging or to not endanger them.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded as it was by negligence, and the Defendant shocked the victim C (the age of 40) who was crossing the pedestrian crossing from the right edge to the right edge of the road, to the front part of the said vehicle.

The Defendant caused the victim to suffer a scarcity of a scarcity that requires stability for two weeks by occupational negligence as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C’s statement;

1. The actual condition survey report;

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

1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) and Article 3 (6) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents According to the relevant criminal facts and the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a motor vehicle operated by the defendant for sentencing in the reason of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Provisional Payment Order is covered by a comprehensive insurance and thus the damage of the victim is entirely recovered, and the victim is not punished by the defendant, but it is recognized that the defendant has a motor vehicle coming from the left-hand side while bypassing the intersection, but the defendant did not have to confirm the motor vehicle in the right-hand side and pay attention to whether there is a person walking on the right-hand crosswalk while driving on the crosswalk, and the degree of violation of the duty of care is weak.