logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.01.11 2017고단4554
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person engaged in driving of F vehicle owned by E while operating the waste collection and transportation business of E located in Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Seo-gu.

As a person in charge of safety management, etc., the Defendant was in charge of operating the said vehicle to move the pressure roll, and thus, the Defendant had a duty of care to prevent accidents by properly placing a person for safety prevention in the rear bank, etc.

Nevertheless, at around 08:40 on May 29, 2017, the Defendant did not place a person to prevent safety in the rear side in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City, and did not discover the victim G (64 ) who was working in the 24 tons of the above vehicle and went back to the 24 tons of the pressure roll, and caused the qui of the victim to be attached to the seat of the cancer truck, because it was impossible to discover the victim G (64 ) who was working in the back of the pressure roll.

As a result, the defendant suffered from the injury, such as the damage to the right-hand side, the damage to the left-hand pressure, etc., which requires eight weeks of medical treatment due to the above occupational negligence, which led to the failure of the victim to cut off the part of the satisfaction.

2. Determination of the facts charged is a crime falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the express will of the victim pursuant to Article 3(2) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Amended by Act No. 14277, Dec. 2, 2016).

According to the records, the victim G can be acknowledged to have withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant on December 18, 2017, which was after the institution of the prosecution. Thus, the prosecution against this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow