beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2013.12.13 2013고정1704

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Violation of the Road Traffic Act (AFS) is a person who is engaged in driving service of a passenger car B.

On April 25, 2013, the Defendant driven the above vehicle on April 25, 2013, and led the NC department stores located in the camping dong in Seongbuk-gu, Seonam-si, Seonam-do, to take the front side of the NC department stores, from the front side of the night zone to the front side of the night station.

In such a case, there was a duty of care to operate a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle accurately, to operate a steering gear and brake, and to safely drive the motor vehicle by keeping the rear and left and right well.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so, and caused the Defendant’s negligence to shock the part concerning the front part of the DKaman car driving in front of the Defendant’s vehicle driven by C, which is parked behind the Defendant’s vehicle, with the lower part of the vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant did not immediately stop and take necessary measures while destroying and damaging a vehicle owned by the victim E by the aforementioned occupational negligence to have approximately KRW 364,789.

2. On April 25, 2013, the Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Doing Vehicle) driving the said vehicle after the accident, such as Paragraph 1, and driving the said vehicle into the front side of the NC department store located in the night tower in the area of Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si.

In such cases, there was a duty of care to confirm whether a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle is a person driving on the front side and right side well and to prevent the accident in advance by driving the motor vehicle safely.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and neglected to proceed in front of the Defendant’s vehicle due to negligence, which led to the Defendant’s failure to go ahead of the front and the front part of the victim C(27 years of age) who was in front of the Defendant’s vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant is guilty of occupational negligence as above.