logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.01.25 2016구단100586
자동차운전면허취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 23, 2016, the Defendant issued the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that “Around 08:20 on January 17, 2016, the Plaintiff was driving a vehicle on the front of the Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, in front of the Yancheon-gun, and caused a traffic accident involving personal damage and material damage, and did not perform on-site relief measures and duty to report.”

B. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on May 10, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was not aware of the fact that the accident occurred due to his mistake and the fact that the victims suffered injuries, and it was merely leaving the accident site without recognizing the injury of the victims, and it cannot be deemed that there was a criminal intent to escape.

Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked because it was erroneous by mistake of facts.

B. In full view of the evidence Nos. 3 and 7 evidence Nos. 7, Cheongju District Court’s Young-dong Branch, on March 2, 2017, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff left the scene of the accident even if the Plaintiff knew at least that the victims suffered injuries due to the instant accident, and even if so, he/she was aware of the fact that the victims sustained injuries due to the instant accident, and sentenced the Plaintiff to a fine of KRW 8 million by recognizing the Defendant guilty of the facts constituting the instant disposition (No. 2016 Go-dong30), and the Plaintiff’s appeal and appeal were all dismissed, and the judgment became final and conclusive.

On the contrary, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that there are special circumstances to deem it difficult to adopt the factual judgment of the above criminal case as it is, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this case.

arrow