logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.05.03 2017고단4182
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 6 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On July 17, 2017, the Defendant driven a B car at around 16:10, and neglected the duty of care on the front side of the D household store located in the north-gu Seoul metropolitan city, thereby passing through the intersection by going to the left-hand to the left-hand of the Non-Protection Green Signals, while neglecting the duty of care on the front side of the D household store located in Gwangju metropolitan city, the Defendant escaped without taking necessary measures for traffic accidents, such as relief measures, etc., on the opposite to the direction of the security center, the F.E. driving of the victim E (71) who is going to go in accordance with the straight line from the face of the security center to the face-hand intersection to the face-hand intersection.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement E in the second public trial records;

1. A survey report on actual conditions;

1. An accident scene photograph;

1. A written diagnosis and written estimate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes as a result of the reproduction of black boxes and video CDs;

1. Article 5-3 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes related to the crime, Article 268 of the Criminal Act (the point of escape after the injury or injury caused by duty), Articles 148 and 54 subparag. 1 of the Road Traffic Act (the point of non-measures after the injury or injury caused by duty) concerning the crime;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The crime of this case committed without taking necessary measures despite the occurrence of a traffic accident beyond the victim's personal damage due to the main negligence of the defendant's main reason for sentencing of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order.

However, the instant traffic accident could not be seen as having been difficult for the Defendant to recognize that he was responsible for the instant traffic accident.

It is limited to the degree of personal damage inflicted on the victim.

arrow