logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 공주지원 2014.10.21 2014고정72
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who is engaged in driving of CPoter 1t cargo vehicles.

On May 9, 2014, the Defendant, while driving the above cargo vehicle and driving it on May 16:51, 201, had the victim DD (the age of 69) driving a vehicle in front of the agricultural machinery in the direction of Chungcheong Eup from the south side to the south side of the road in front of the agricultural machinery.

In this case, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to overtake in a safe speed and manner with the left side of the vehicle running ahead of it, by properly examining the opposite direction and the traffic of the vehicle running ahead of it.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and caused the victim to go beyond the floor by shocking the above part of the right hand hand hand on the left side of the cargo vehicle by negligence over the right side of the vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury, such as cage cages, which require approximately seven weeks of medical treatment, due to the above occupational negligence.

2. Determination:

A. Article 21 (1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "All drivers of vehicles shall pass on the left side of the vehicle running ahead of another vehicle" with respect to the method of overtaking as to whether the defendant violated the method of overtaking as provided by the Road Traffic Act, and it is reasonable to interpret that the above provision provides for the method of passing a vehicle driving after a vehicle driving ahead of another vehicle on the same line.

Therefore, it does not constitute an overtaking to which the above provision applies in cases where there are two lanes prior to one another, and where there are the latter one, and the latter one leads the latter one when there are the latter one, and the latter one does not constitute an overtaking to which the above provision applies.

However, this court's fact-finding results on the Cheongnam-do General Construction Business Office branch, the fact-finding report submitted by the prosecutor, and on-site photographs.

arrow