(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.03.03 2016노3987 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.03.03 2016노3987

특수상해등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the vehicle in the room after having driven a taxi by himself (hereinafter “Defendant taxi”) was the victim’s taxi (hereinafter “victim’s taxi”) and that the Defendant was the victim’s taxi, not the Defendant’s taxi in order to let the passenger board in light of the regular location of the taxi or the point of stopping, but the victim’s taxi who was in the immediately preceding time was not on the way to turn on the way of the taxi.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant intentionally caused an accident that may inflict an injury on the victim and damage property.

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court’s determination is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant intentionally caused an accident that may inflict an injury on the victim and damage property on the following grounds:

The decision was determined.

1) After the Defendant made a left turn, the Defendant turned on the direction of the appropriate direction until entering a four-lane, 27km to 39km at a speed between speed and 39km, and the situation seems to particularly threaten the victim taxi in the speed and direction of the driving speed and direction does not appear. Defendant taxi starts with the left turn after having a dispute at the left turn, and the victim taxi stopped at the right turn and left turn to the left turn after Defendant taxi departed from the left turn, and Defendant taxi turned to the left turn, and Defendant taxi turned to the left turn at a low speed of 8:29 minutes at that time, and the Defendant was aware of the fact that the victim following Defendant taxi was the victim.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to see the victim's statement alone, the defendant was forced to leave the victim's taxi in front of the victim's taxi.

It is difficult to see it.

2) After the occurrence of an accident, the Defendant stated that “drawing, partially driving,” but this is three-lanes by the Defendant.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 서부지원 2019.10.31 2019고단1741

-수원고등법원 2020.12.02 2020누11615

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.12 2014나71377

-인천지방법원 2017.06.08 2017고단2327

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2016.07.20 2016고정245