logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.07.04 2018고단1164
도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On September 5, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of 1.5 million won by violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), and a summary order of 4.5 million won by the same court on July 28, 2010.

1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of a vehicle XG after obtaining a franchise from B New Dailys.

On January 17, 2018, the Defendant proceeded along the three-lanes of the three-lanes of the registered place of business from the Meart to the registered place of business, the roads in front of D Certified Official Broker C in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do.

Since there are three lanes, there was a parking vehicle, so there was a duty of care to prevent accidents by safely driving a motor vehicle by driving the motor vehicle, such as checking the front side and the left side of the motor vehicle and accurately operating the brake system.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as the negligence of driving a vehicle on the left-hand part of the F Fow-hand car owned by E in parking as above, left-hand part of the said new car and escaped without immediately stopping the repair cost to the extent of KRW 3,064,081, and without taking necessary measures, such as checking the accident and removing obstacles to traffic.

2. On January 17, 2018, the Defendant: (a) operated a new car as described in paragraph (1) while under the influence of alcohol with approximately 0.18% alcohol concentration from the NM parking lot located in the north-dong, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do to the front road of the D authorized broker located in the same Gu from approximately 1km section to approximately 0.118%.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who violated the duty not to drive alcohol more than twice, was driving under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A survey report on actual conditions;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. E statements;

1. Written estimate;

1. Investigation report (the result of the re-application of the said dmark);

1. A previous conviction in judgment:

arrow