logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2013.05.09 2012고정625
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a Crasing vehicle.

On February 22, 2012, around 22:19, the above vehicle was driven by the driver of the above vehicle, and the road of the distance in front of the Master's Association of Ansan-dong, Chuncheon City was driven at the speed of the 4th apartment of the withdrawing city to the edidi-style Council of Ansan-do.

At that time, a person engaged in the business of driving a motor vehicle on the intersection with a signal, etc. has a duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle in compliance with his/her own signal.

Nevertheless, due to negligence in violation of the signal, the “school valley” in the facts charged in the Southern Station is erroneous and corrected as it is from the direction of the Eknife vehicle driven by the victim D (the age of 65, South).

The front door part of the damaged vehicle was not found to have been directly driven by normal signal, and the front door part of the damaged vehicle was received.

Ultimately, the Defendant’s negligence caused an injury to the driver of the victimized vehicle, such as catitiss requiring treatment for 20 days, and the victim F (54 years of age, female) who is the passenger of the victimized vehicle, suffered an injury, such as catitiss requiring treatment for two weeks, and the victim G (5 years of age, female) who is the passenger of the victimized vehicle, suffered an injury, such as a shoulder datum dume, requiring treatment for six weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D, G, and F;

1. A copy of each medical certificate;

1. Determination on the defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion of traffic accident report

1. The summary of the assertion did not violate the signal, and the vehicle aboard the victims violated the signal.

2. The victim D stated consistently from the investigative agency to this court that “the vehicle was operated in accordance with the straight signal at the accident scene, and the vehicle was operated in accordance with the straight signal even on the front side of the victim’s vehicle.” Such victim’s statement is specific and reliable.

arrow