(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.11.02 2018노2151 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.11.02 2018노2151

도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Due to the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, there was no need for the Defendant to take measures to remove the risks and obstacles to traffic separately and to ensure smooth traffic.

However, the judgment of the court below which convicted the primary charge is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant, at the lower court, alleged the same time as the grounds for appeal on this part of this case, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by stating in detail the assertion and judgment in the item “the judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel.”

D. The reasoning of the judgment below reveals that the non-products from the accident of this case are far away from the parking space, as alleged by the defendant.

Even when assumed, pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 2 subparag. 1 (a) of the Parking Act, etc., a street parking lot installed on the surface of the same road as the place of the accident in this case constitutes “road” under the Road Traffic Act, and in this case, there was a danger and impediment to traffic in the light of the fact that the traffic of the general public is scheduled.

In addition, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

Contrary to the defendant's assertion, there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and legal principles affecting the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. It is recognized that whether sentencing is unfair or not the defendant is the first offender with no criminal history, and that the defendant's motor vehicle is covered by a comprehensive insurance and thus the victim's damage is likely to be recovered.

However, the crime of this case was committed without taking necessary measures for the damage of vehicles parked on the road by the defendant.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2017.10.18 2017노178

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.21 2018노599

-춘천지방법원 2017.05.17 2016노325

-청주지방법원 2018.04.19 2017노1354

-청주지방법원 2017.06.15 2017노281