logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.06 2018노2081
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

가. 사실 오인 이 사건 당시 피고인은 후방 경고등을 켠 채 후방의 상황을 주의 깊게 살피면서 아주 느린 속도로 후진하는 등 운전자에게 요구되는 업무상 주의의무를 다 하였다.

In addition, since the traffic accident of this case occurred at the wind of the victim's own unauthorized crossing, there was no possibility for the defendant to anticipate the occurrence of the accident.

Therefore, the Defendant had a occupational fault with respect to the instant traffic accident

In addition, the victim did not have the same injury as stated in the facts charged due to the instant traffic accident.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of fact, the Defendant also asserted as to the assertion of mistake of fact, and the lower court rejected the said assertion in detail, and found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by mistake as alleged by the defendant.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Although the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant case’s determination as to the unfair argument of sentencing was not covered by a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, there are circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as that the Defendant’s vehicle was not covered by a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, the victim did not want the Defendant’s punishment by mutual agreement with the victim at the time of the instant case, the degree of violation of the Defendant’s duty of care, and the degree of injury suffered by the victim is relatively minor, and the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment, in addition to punishment imposed

arrow