logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.05.12 2015노1727
도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not have been negligent in the occurrence of the instant accident. Even if the Defendant’s negligence was recognized, the content of the instant accident was insignificant and the Defendant did not recognize the occurrence of the accident and did not have any intent to commit a crime against the measures that were not taken after the accident.

In addition, in light of the overall circumstances such as the damage caused by the instant accident and the fact that non-products, etc. did not exist on the road, measures as stipulated in Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act at the time were not necessary.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the guilty of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, first, we examine the argument that the defendant was not negligent in the accident of this case.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, ① the victim’s vehicle was moved to the right by one lane on the road where the victim’s vehicle is hondly hondly, and the defendant’s vehicle was traveling along the two lanes from the rear side of the victim’s vehicle, and the accident of this case occurred due to collision with the victim’s vehicle while the victim’s vehicle was traveling along the two lanes, ② the victim’s vehicle was cut back to a narrow range, but the victim’s vehicle was committed a two-lane, but the defendant could have sufficiently prevented the accident if he had sufficiently operated the steering system and the brake system.

It is not different even if there is no difference.

Even if the defendant's negligence is not recognized

The duty to take relief measures stipulated in Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is the vehicle that causes the traffic accident.

arrow