logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.03.24 2016노4191
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the place where the instant accident occurred, misunderstanding of fact, is where no one can own, and at the time of the accident, it was extremely difficult for the Defendant to predict that the victim could walk the roadway at the center. After finding the victim, the Defendant had already been able to avoid collision with the victim.

Therefore, there is no occupational negligence on the defendant with regard to the above accident.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year of suspended sentence in June) is too unreasonable.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who is engaged in driving service of a D bargaining passenger car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

On October 25, 2015, the Defendant driven the above car at around 02:10, and driven a two-lane road (hereinafter “the road of this case”) in front of the middle school of the bank located in the circulation area in Seongbuk-gu, Seonam-gu, Seonam-si, Seonam-si (hereinafter “the road of this case”) from the entrance side of the Namsan Pungsan Park, the Defendant driven the road at about 60km each other at a speed of about 50km along two lanes.

At the time of night, there was a duty of care to see the front door and to prevent accidents in advance by accurately manipulating the brakes.

Nevertheless, the defendant tried to find out the victim E (the 46-year old) who walked two lanes on the front side of the defendant and take a sudden action to avoid this due to the negligence that the defendant was not able to look at the last vehicle in the direction of the enforcement camera and the whiteer installed in his surrounding areas, but the defendant tried to take a sudden action to avoid this. However, the defendant did not avoid the victim due to the fact that he did not properly operate the operation of the operation system, and the head of the victim was able to be the victim for the front of the flacing car, and the head of the victim was the flaced.

arrow