logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.09.11 2015노429
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of suspended sentence of imprisonment without prison labor) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and divided the mistake in depth.

In addition, the instant traffic accident is caused by the Defendant’s failure to perform his duty to prevent the accident by driving a vehicle at a speed exceeding 26 km/h, while driving the vehicle at a one-lane on the road, and the Defendant’s negligence with the illegal snick line, while driving the vehicle at a two-lane on the same direction without the motor vehicle driver’s license, and it cannot be said that the Defendant is fully responsible for the occurrence of the accident.

In addition, the Defendant took relief measures against the victim immediately after the occurrence of the instant traffic accident.

Furthermore, the defendant agreed to the bereaved family members of the victim with a mutual agreement by paying 30 million won as consolation money or compensation for damage.

In addition, the fact that the vehicle operated by the defendant is subscribed to the mutual aid association operated by the National Passenger Transport Business Association of Korea, and that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment until now should be considered favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is that the defendant driving a vehicle at a speed exceeding about 26 km/h on the road at a speed exceeding 26 km/h on the road, resulting in the victim's death due to serious brain damage, etc., which eventually led to the victim's death.

The crime of this case led to the young age of 18 years at the time of the crime of this case, resulting in the victim's severe death, and the victim's bereaved family members suffered considerable mental suffering.

In addition, since the defendant operated a vehicle more considerably than the restricted speed as seen above, he could not sufficiently cope with the sudden situation.

arrow