logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2016.02.18 2015고단1045
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of CAWn-turd passenger vehicles.

On September 2, 2015, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 17:37, and continued the front parking lot of D Apartment 109, Chuncheon-si, with 108 Dong-dong and 109 Dong-dong-si.

It is a frequent parking lot for pedestrians, so there was a duty of care to reduce speed and drive safely by checking the right and the right of the driver.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and went beyond the victim E (1) who was in front of the Defendant's progress due to negligence, and went beyond the front part of the above vehicle.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury, such as cutting the body part of the body part, if he/she knew about four weeks of medical treatment due to the above occupational negligence.

2. The above facts charged cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent pursuant to the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

According to the F's written agreement, it is recognized that the victim's mother F has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant on February 11, 2016, after the indictment of this case.

In the crime of non-violation of intention, the victim has expressed his wish not to punish or withdrawn his wishing to punish.

In order for recognition, the victim’s true intent should be expressed in a way that enables clear and reliable testimony of the victim. In the case where the victim is a minor, whether the legal representative of the victim included the victim’s intent in the expression of no punishment expressed against the defendant, etc. should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the type and content of the subject case, the victim’s age, the actual subject and content of the agreement, the circumstances before and after the agreement, and the attitude of the legal representative and the victim (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5658 Decided May 13, 2010).

arrow