logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 원주지원 2017.06.14 2017고단366
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of a city bus in fishing to B New Schlage.

On November 18, 2016, the Defendant was driving a bus around 06:30 on the 18th day of November, 2016 and stopped the bus in front of the original city C, but it was turned down to the right-hand side of the burner elementary school.

At this point, there is a side road of the house, and there is a bus stop, so there is a duty of care to safely drive the bus after thoroughly checking the front and left side of the bus driver and checking whether there is a person who is engaged in driving service of the bus.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and did not discover the victim D (W, 80 years old) who has come to the front door in order to board the bus at a time when it was due to the negligence of leaving the bus as it is, and did not discover the victim D (W, 80 years old) and tried to qui to the front side of the bus operation.

After all, the Defendant suffered serious injury due to the above occupational negligence by having the victim cut part of the left-hand falls due to the injury, such as the damage on the left-hand side, which requires approximately 21 weeks medical treatment.

2. The instant facts charged are crimes 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 victim’s express intent under the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

According to the records, it can be acknowledged that the victim agreed with the defendant on April 27, 2017, which was after the prosecution, and expressed his/her intent not to have the defendant punished (i.e., self-agreement on April 27, 2017). Therefore, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow