logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.08.13 2015노504
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is that the traffic accident in this case occurred by intentionally shocking the Defendant’s driving vehicle by using signal signals from the lane in which E, the driver of the damaged vehicle, is infinite, but the traffic accident in this case was caused by intentionally shocking the Defendant’s driving vehicle. However, the judgment below convict

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant received the damaged vehicle due to the negligence of violating the signal as stated in the judgment below, and the causal link between the Defendant’s signal violation and the instant traffic accident can be sufficiently recognized. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant driven a taxi and went to the front of the crosswalk in the direction of proceeding. While the vehicle signal, etc. was changed to yellow, the Defendant continued to enter the intersection without stopping.

B. E was proceeding on the taxi right side of the Defendant, and was placed on the right side of the right side of the right side, but at the time, it was in accordance with the straight line of green signal, etc.

C. At the time when approximately three seconds have elapsed after receiving the signal of direct operation, the taxi of E and the defendant were in conflict with each other, and at the time the defendant was passing a rapid crossing in violation of the signal.

E has not enough time to move because the defendant's taxi is not in a situation to see the defendant's taxi properly because the defendant's taxi was proceeding in the remote direction.

E. After the instant traffic accident, E did not want to be punished by the Defendant while being investigated by the investigative agency, and did not demand the Defendant to pay a agreed amount, and there seems to be no special motive to intentionally cause the traffic accident.

(f).

arrow