logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 충주지원 2019.07.24 2018고정173
도로교통법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 100,000.

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

Reasons

Criminal facts

On March 10, 2018, at around 13:45, the Defendant driven the volume of the B-learning passenger car, and led to a straight distance of 1th Chapter to 3th grade high-tech industry at the time of Chungcheongju to C in the face of the front party.

At the time, signal lights are installed in a three-distance intersection in normal operation, and red stop signals are located in the front direction, so in such a case all drivers of vehicles have the duty of care to comply with the signal or instruction displayed by traffic safety facilities.

Nevertheless, the Defendant violated the signal by disregarding and proceeding red stop signals in the direction of progress.

Summary of Evidence

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

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Ethical letters;

1. Control field map;

1. On-site map and explanation of the signal violation, and the intensity and explanation of on-site inspection of the signal violation;

1. On-site inspection of and explanation on signal violations;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's defense counsel's assertion against each of the following persons asserted that they did not violate the signal, since the defendant had proceeded in accordance with the green signals such as signal at the time.

Control police officers E and D consistently stated the place where other vehicles have been consistently controlled from the investigative agency to the court, the reason why the control was conducted, the method of control, and the details of the defendant's violation of signals.

Considering the fact that E/D’s attitude of statement, false statement, etc. in this court does not appear, the credibility of E/D’s statement is recognized.

According to E and D statements, the Defendant and his defense counsel's assertion are not accepted, since the Defendant could have neglected red suspension signals at the time and operated a motor vehicle.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 156(1)1 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 14911, Oct. 24, 2017); Articles 156(1)1 and 5(1)1 of the same Act; the choice of fines for criminal facts;

1. Detention at a workhouse;

arrow