logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.11.13 2014노840
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The lower court determined that the Defendant was not negligent on duty.

However, according to the legitimate evidence shown in the instant case, it is sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant was negligent on duty.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor whose indictment was modified shall keep the existing facts charged as the primary facts charged and shall maintain them as the name of the conjunctive crime, "Violation of the Road Traffic Act (not in preparation for accidents)" and "Article 148 and Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act" and the subordinate applicable provisions of the Road Traffic Act.

1) An application for amendment to a bill of indictment was filed with each addition of the ancillary facts as stated in Paragraph 1, and this court permitted the application and added it to the subject of the judgment. B) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record of the instant case as to the primary facts charged, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that there was occupational negligence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there was an occupational negligence. (i) The Defendant was proceeding at a speed of about 40 km depending on the one-lane road of the fourth line.

2) The victim, as soon as the vehicle driven in two or four lanes in front, comes to run in one lane, and is faced with the front left part of the defendant's vehicle. As such, the victim comes to the front part of the defendant's vehicle rapidly. In particular, the victim has reached the vehicle rapidly, and the shock level is the rear part of the defendant's vehicle, it seems that the defendant does not seem to have reached the vehicle rapidly, and the victim is not considered to have reached the vehicle as one lane in the center at the accident site. 3) The defendant is a person crossing the vehicle without permission at the center at the accident site of this case, but on the other hand, the accident site of this case was under the land intersection, and the defendant is proceeding in the vehicle, the two or four lanes except for one lane.

arrow