logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2016.09.07 2016고단540
교통사고처리특례법위반등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On December 22, 2015, the Defendant: (a) driven a C taxi under the influence of alcohol with approximately 300 meters alcohol concentration of about 0.085% from the 300m section to the front road of the 1433 Kimpo-dong, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si around 22:35, 2015.

2. The Defendant in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is a person engaged in driving a C-si.

On December 2, 2015, at around 22:35, the Defendant driven the said taxi while under the influence of alcohol of 0.085% of blood alcohol level, and led the Defendant to proceed bypassing the long police box from the direction of strengthening the road in front of the 1433 Kimpo-dong, Kimpo-dong, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, located in 1433 as Kimpo-si.

At night, there are crosswalks where signal lights are installed at night, so the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle according to the traffic signal and prevent the accident in advance. In addition, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely prevent the accident by driving the motor vehicle according to traffic signal.

Nevertheless, under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant neglected to walk on the left side of the crosswalk due to the negligence of bypassing it, and found the victim D (influence, 70 years of age) who walk on the right side of the crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian signals, and immediately fluences to avoid this. Accordingly, the victim was in excess of the fluence road by reporting the said taxi.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as salt dynasium, tension, etc., requiring medical treatment for the number of days due to the above occupational negligence.

The prosecutor initially indicted the victim of the instant accident on the charge that the defendant suffered ‘the victim's ‘the right dog scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare, etc.', and

arrow