beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2019.11.27 2019고단1153

교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the violation of the Road Traffic Act against the victim B.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of CPoter II cargo vehicles.

At around 14:50 on March 28, 2019, the Defendant driven the foregoing cargo vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.079%, and proceeded at a speed that is impossible to identify the five-lane road near the sexual mountain through the Gangseo-gu, Mapo-gu, Seoul, 1536-4, the Gangseo-gu, Seoul, along with three-lanes in the direction of the sexual mountain.

At the time, the defendant was followed by the Drocketing car driven by the victim B (the age of 32) prior to the same direction three lanes, and thus, the driver had a duty of care to look at the front side and right side of the vehicle and to secure safety distance by accurately manipulating the steering gear and brake system of the vehicle and to prevent the accident by safely driving according to traffic conditions.

Nevertheless, under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant, while driving a stroke, was negligent in neglecting to do so, received the back stringer of the said rocketing car due to the shock, and caused the shock to have the said rocketing vehicle pushed forward in the future and driven by the victim E (the age of 65).

Ultimately, the Defendant by occupational negligence inflicted injury on the victim B, such as salt, tensions, etc., on the part of the victim G (at the age of 28) who was on the top of the operation of the said rocketing car, suffered from the injury of climatic salt, tensions, etc. which requires approximately two weeks of treatment, injury of the victim E, such as light clifts, which requires approximately three weeks of treatment, and injury to the victim H (the age of 45) who was on the back of the said taxi, in need of approximately two weeks of treatment.

2. The Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act, at the time and place specified in paragraph 1, 1,644,652, the Defendant 1,652, the Victim E-owned taxi due to occupational negligence, such as the date and place specified in paragraph 1.