logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 거창지원 2014.07.02 2014고정22
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaged in driving Cwing and 3 ordinary dump trucks.

At around 10:00 on September 26, 2013, the Defendant came to enter the Gohap-gun, Gohap-gun, Dongcheon-gun as a second-lane road in front of the parking lot at the Gohap-gun, Dongcheon-gun, Dongcheon-gun.

It is a section that leads to the road from the parking lot to the place that overlaps with the delivery, and since the place where pedestrians are frequent, there was a duty of care to check whether a person engaged in driving service has a pedestrian's right of care to safely proceed by checking whether there is a pedestrian's right of before and after the career.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and went beyond the road by receiving the victim D (the age of 82) who was faced with the delivery from the gold instructor distance room to the Gohap-Gun Office, as the front part of the cargo vehicle due to the negligence of the Defendant's failure.

Ultimately, even though the Defendant suffered from an injury, such as the closure of the runway, which requires approximately six weeks of medical treatment due to the above occupational negligence, the Defendant immediately stopped and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victim.

2. Determination:

A. The facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial must be proven by the prosecutor, and the judge should be found guilty with evidence having probative value, which leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine it with the benefit of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do767 delivered on April 15, 2005, etc.). We examine the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, ① The Defendant is consistently from the investigative agency to the police.

arrow